The Sun.
London, England, 1862-05-16 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

Sittings at Nisi Prius at Westminster.—(Before
Mr. Baron Martin and Common Juries.)
SATINDERS BASTABLE-ACCIDENT.

This was au action to recover compensation in
damages for bodily injuries sustained by the plain-
tiff through the alleged negligence of the defendant's
servant in driving a fire-engine.
The defendant pleaded not guilty, and that the
fire-engine and horses were not under the care and
direction of his servant.

Mr. Sergeant Petersdorff and Mr. Bridges were
counsel for the plaintiff; and Mr. M. Chambers and
Mr. T. Salter for the defendant.

The plaintiff, who was 68 years old, was formerly
a hotel keeper, and the owner of a coach and horses
at Honiton, hut having become reduced in circum-
stances,t had taken to cab driving, and earned about
30s. by that occupation. On the evening. ofo whas
31st of January last, about ten o'clock, bk
driving through Finsbury-square, and
1-street a
in the act of turning into Chistw while
fire-engine, from the Watling-street station, ran
injuries upon
into his cab, the pole inflicting serious
St. Barthoiomew's Hospital,
plaintiff was taken to
his thigh and the lower part of his abdomen. The
i„, say an in-patient ; aua
where he remain en for
partiallyl
recovered, he was repre.
although he had
ana to be unable to follow his
sented to be !am
engine, and it appeared from
The eddefßenodroannat,h,whhaod cacrornietdraocntebdustio-
occupation.
the t m ct, which was produced by
the terms of thesuperi t
snuepssplyinhorBsteasr
Captain Shaw, n endent of the London
Fire Brigade, -lorarthe
gade, that he was also to furnish a compe-
tent driver for whose negligence or default he was
to be wholly liable.
Captain Shaw said that an engineer generally
accompanied the engine, and took command of it,
but he did not superintend the driving.
The house surgeon of the hospital who attended
the plaintiff was absent in the country, and the
PlOutiff Was unable ;9 pay the exPeoe of his

coming to London. Mr, Lawrence, the senior
surgeon, had been subpoenaed and paid the usual
guinea fee, but he asked 10 guineas for his atten-
dance, which the plaintiff also could nut afford.
A medical man, who had seen the plaintiff on the
previous day, deposed to the injuries which he had
received, and said it was uncertain whether his
lameness would be permanent or not.
Only one witness was called for the defence—the
engineer—who said the accident arose from the
plaintiff driving his cab suddenly across the front
of the engine as it was proceeding at the rate of
about seven,miles an hour to a fire at Ball's-pond.
Mr. M. Chambers having addressed the jury for
the defence,

The learned Judge summed up, and
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—
damages £25.

COURT OIL PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
JEWELL V. JEWELL.

Dr. Spinks appeared for the petitioner. She was
orignally a Miss Levy or Lavy (for her family had
latterly adopted the latter name); and she was
married to the respondent Joel Jewell, an outfitter
in Shadwell, at the New Synagogue, Great St.
Helen's, on the 10th Sept., 1851. 'there had been
no children. She stated that about three months
after her marriage her husband began to treat her
with cruelty. He had several times since beaten
her, and he had also been guilty of a gross miscon-
duct towards her which had seriously affected her
health. She had not cohabited with him since 1854 ;
but she did not leave the house till last year ; and
she finally quitted it because he had attempted to
use violence towards her. While they lived in the
same house she never went near him when she
could help it—he smelt so dreadfully. She would
not eat with him, or after him, nor would the ser-
vants. Mrs. Jewell's evidence was largely confirmed
by several witnesses.
Mr. Giffard contended that the residence of the
petitioner in the same house with respondent
amounted to condonation.

Sir C. Cresswell said the case was certainly a very
curious one in some of its aspects. His present im-
pression was that the allegations of the petitioner
were made out ; but he would reserve his decision
far further consideration.
HALF EY Y. HALFEY.— AN OTHER GRETNA• GREEN

MARRIAGE,
Dr. Spinks appeared for the petitioner. The mar-
riage took place at Gretna-green on the 21st of
February, 1849, the petitioner being at that time a
servant at the Scarsbrick Arms, Southport, and the
respondent the son of a boarding-house keeper
in the same town. They never lived together,
but they saw each other from time to time; and
in the January of 1850 the petitioner bore her hus-
band a daughter. He had since gone to Australia,
where he was now living with a woman, to whom
he appeared to be married. Mrs. Halfey, there-
fore, sued for a dissolution, on the ground of adul-
tery and desertion.
The court made a decree nisi, with costs.

SMITH V. SMITH AND PIGDEN.
Mr. Hsdgsou appeared for the petitioner, who
was a working gardener. The parties were married
at Clapham, in the year 1844, and they cohabited
till 1857, during which time they had three chil•
dren. The respondent then eloped with the co-
respondent, with whom she was •now living, and
by whom she had had two children. Pigden was
a blacksmith at Garret, in Surrey.
The court made a decree nisi, with costs.
TERRY V. TERRY.-SHOCKING CASE.

The petitioner, James Terry, a hair-dresser, of
Pleasant-row, Holloway, sought a dissolution of his
marriage, on account of his wife's adultery with her
own brother, -Thomas Richardson. Rictardson,
who was a soldier, had since committed suicide.
Dr. Swabey appeared for the petitioner.
The marriage took place in 1842, and had been
followed by the birth of two childrer. Latterly,
the conduct of the respondent had become very dis-
solute; and on the 27th of February. 1860, she left
her home with her brother (who had been staying
with her), and representing themselves to be man
and wife, they obtained lodgings at a coffee-house
in Bishopsgate-street, where they passed two nights
together. They then both took poison, and Richard-
son died. The respondent, however, recovered.
She was afterwards convicted at the Old Bailey of
having been accessory to her brother's suicide, and
she had suffered a term of imprisonment for the
offence.

A decree nisi was granted.
BURBAGE V. BURBAGE.
This was a petition by a wife for adultery and
desertion. The respondent was a cabinet-maker,
and he married the petitioner in July, 1840. In
Feb., 1859, he went to America with a barmaid at
a tavern at Clerkenwell, with whom he had formed
a criminal connexion. The petitioner has since sup-
ported herself as a governess.
Mr. Pinder appeared for the petitioner.
Decree nisi.