The Sun.
London, England, 1862-07-17 00:00:00

LA TV INTELLIGENCE.-July 16.

COURT OF CHANCERY.
(Before the Lord Chancellor.)
REDDIN V. METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS.
This was an appeal from a decision of Vice-
Chancellor Wood.
The plaintiff was a contractor for the removal of
dust and rubbish, which he afterwards prepared for
brickmaking, and also for agricultural purposes.
His business was carried on at the Grove, South-
wark, in certain premises, including a dwelling-
house, engine-house, " tot shop," or sorting room,
slop shoot, and an extensive yard, occupied by dust
and manure heaps, which were subjected to various
successive processes before being rendered available.
The defendants had given the plaintiff notice of
their requiring a small portion of the premises, viz.,
the " tot shop," for the purposes of the Covent-
garden Approach and Southwark and Westminster
Communication Act, 1857, by which a new street
from Blackfriars-road to High-street, Borough, was
one of the works required to be made. The plaintiff
refused to sell the portion required by defendants,
on the ground that the whole of the premises in his
occupation, and used by him for his business, consti-
tuted " a manufactory" within section 92 of the
Lands Clauses Act, and claimed the right, under
that section, of compelling the defendants to take
the whole property if they required any part of it.
It was contended by the plaintiff that the " tot
shop," or sorting shop, was essential to the carrying
on of the plaintiff's business, the most important
process of sifting and sorting being carried on there.
The question was whether this part of the premises
came within the meaning of the word " manufac-
tory." The Vice Chancellor held that it did, and
made an order for an injunction to restrain the de-
fendants from taking any steps for acquiring the
premises except on the terms of taking the whole.
Hence the appeal.
Mr. Rolt, Mr.Willcock, and Mr. C. Hall appeared
for the appellants ; Sir Hugh Cairns, Mr. Giffard,
and Mr. E. Bury were for the plaintiff.
The Lord Chancellor, without hearing the reply,
said he did not concur in the opinion of the Vice
Chancellor, that the business carried on by the
plaintiff constituted him a manufacturer within the
meaning of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act.
Such being the case, the " tot shop" was not part of
a " manufactory,' the taking of which by defendants
would render them liable to take the whole of the
plaintiff's premises. The plaintiff was a dustman,
contractor, and scavenger, and the use of the " tot
shop" was incident to that business, and did not in
any way form portion of a " manufactory." The
order of the Court below would therefore be reversed
and the injuuci ion dissolved.
Appeal allowed.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before Sir C. Cresswell.)
ZYCHLINSKI V. ZYCHLINSKI-EXTRAORDINARY CASE.
This was a suit for judicial separation brought by
the wife against her husband on the grounds of
cruelty and adultery.
Mr. Macaulay, Q.C., and Dr. Spinks were coun-
sel for the petitioner; Sir F. Slade and Dr. Swabey
appeared on behalf of the respondent.
The learned counsel, in opening the case, said that
this suit was surrounded with peculiar features,
which are detailed in the following evidence :
Adeline Kate Zychlinski stated that she was the
daughter of a clergyman of the Church of England,
residing with her mother, who was separated
from her husband, as was intimated, because of the
lady havinr, some years since become a convert to
Roman Catholicism. In the year 1860 the mother
of the petitioner, with her two daughters, were re-
siding at Rome, where the respondent was also
living in style, moving in the best society. He de-
scribed himself as a baron of the Russian empire
and the relative of a Russian ambassador. The peti-
tioner made his acquaintance, and after a short
courtship they were married. They proceeded to
Hyeres, in the south of France, where they resided
at first very happily ; but rumours got abroad that
he was not a baron, that ho was not even a Rus-
sian, but that he was a Prussian, a private in a Prus-
sian regiment, and a deserter, being, in point of
fact, an impostor. Petitioner's mother was about to
give a party, to which some Russian friends were
invited. The respondent objected, he flew into a
passion. He went to Marseilles upon the pretence
of getting credentials to respectability, but he did
not bring them. When the petitioner told him of
the rumours that he was not a baron, but a deserter
from the Prussian army, he threw a brush at her
and threatened to shoot her ; and on one occasion,
during a ride on horseback upon the ledge of a
frightful precipice, he said he would hurl himself
and her down it, because he said " he knew she be •
stated,
lieved the rumours circulated about him." She was
reduced to a very low and nervous state in conse-
quencethreatene of his repeated threats. The petitioner had
1;300 for her trousseau ; but the respondent charged
her father with being dishonourable. They were
married according to the rites of the Roman
asked witness Catholic church, to which the mother, as already
Sotn and her two daughters had become convert:'.
e daps after the ride on horseback, when he
He then
very a, dto hurl her clown the precipice, he was
He drew lip a kind of separation and
and took her to sign it. He laid it on the table,
threw laughed
the wrists and made her sign it.
wards dragged the
it ielhed at her, tore the paper, and
mother, and nearly strangled He laid hold of her
strangled her. He after-
testitioner into the drawing-
room. He made
servant
tore
to
wife She wrote write several chal-
lenges in French.
the respondent tore them,twherodteocoutmheernst iinttGt
we ro-
andchallenges, but
nian or Polish. Count D. Bourget,
to whom one of
ted a t
was
se
inform the respon-
'
thend challenges
oom mjosi o