The Sun.
London, England, 1862-07-12 00:00:00

140 145
10 11

Share!
100
Btk

20i'
204
10
100 t
100
100

Ili
stock
stock

stock
100
100
100
100
100
100
stock

stock

201
20i
100
100
100

stock
stock
stock
stock

stock

stock

23i 24
101 103
101 103

86 90
201 216
28 29
33,E 314
336 341

42 45
128 130
110230 110525
122 124
1119 121

stock
stock
stock
stock
stock
stock
stack

I.Q.Y.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge-Ordinary and a Special Jury.)
PORTER T. PORTER AND ROSS.

This was a petition presented by the husband, praying
fni divorce on the ground of adultery with the co-respond-
ent.

The marriage having been proved,
Sophia Askell, a nurse who had been in attendance on
Mrs. Porter when she was confined to her bed by illness,
said Mrs. Porter was in the habit of receiving letters ad-
dressed to "Miss Tonks," and from certain circumstances,
she was induced to communicate the fact to Mr. Porter.
She considered Mr. Porter was too kind and too fond of his
wife. She (witness) had heard Mrs. Porter say she wished
her husband was dead, as she then would be a dashing
gay widow.

By the Judge—Mr. Porter bad told her that he had
been obliged to take his children away from their mother,
as her conduct had been so very bad.
Sophia Porter, mother of the petitioner, said she had
known her son's wife about 11 months before they were mar-
ried. On one occasion, in April, 1861, she was sent for to
her sons residence, Warwick Cottage, Park-village. Mrs.
Porter, Mr. Boote, and Mr. Roes were present. That same
night Mrs. Porter left her husband's house. Witness ap-
proved of her son's conduct with respect to the removal of
the children. It was quite necessary they should be taken
away.

Cross-examined—Mrs. Porter, her daughter, used to say
her husband was frequently from home in the evening.
lie used to go to the meeting of the volunteers close by
their residence. She (witness) did not approve of the
volunteering, but she did not communicate that to Mr.
Porter.

Mary Tonks said she resided with her mother at West-
bourn-grove, Paddington. Her mother formerly kept
11, lodging-house, Bedford-place, Kensington. She recol-
lected Mrs. Porter came and took some apartments— a front
parlour and bedroom. Shortly after that a gentleman
came to visit her. She had since found out it was Mr, Ross.
When she asked Mrs. Porter the name of the gentleman,
she (witness) understood her to say his name was Jordan.
On the day on which he arrived Mrs. Porter told her she
expected her legal adviser. After that he used to come
about twice a week. He used to remain about two hours.
She had never said that she did not know at what hour
Mrs. Porter returned when she went out of an evening,
because she used the latch key. There was a sofa in the
parlour ; she never heard any particular noises made by it.
Mr. Porter came to live at the house some time after. Ross
never came while he was there. Mrs. Porter told her that
her husband would not permit her to correspond with the
gentleman, and after that she (witness) ised to receive Mrs.
Porter's letters, and afterwards gave them to her. On the
28th of July, 1861, she recollected the postman coming, and
she took in the letter (produced). ,Mr. Porter took it out
of her hand. Mrs. Porter, in about an hour after that, left
the house. She did not see Mr. Porter read the letter. She
saw Mrs. Porter clasp her hands, and exclaim she was
ruined. She had signed a statement, submitted to her by
Mr. Norton, respecting her evidence in this cause. She
had desired certain alterations to be made, and Mr. Norton
appeared to make them. The statement was brought al-
ready made out, She was not examined at all, but after
she imagined the alterations were made she signed the
paper.

- - The witness was then asked several questions relative to
the statements contained in the paper, all of which she con-
tradicted, especially as to her having heard noises caused by
the sofa.

Mr. William Norton, solicitor, of Gray's-inn.road, said
—He was not the solicitor in the cause, but he had been
spoken to on the subject by petitioner. He received a state-
ment from the last witness. He took it down from her
own mouth. The statement put into his hand was th• same.
She did not desire any alteration in it. She had desired
an alteration to be made in a former statement, and that
was made.

Captain Jones said he was captain and adjutant of the
29th Middlesex Rifle Corps. Mr. Ross was the major in
the regiment. He did not now hold a commission in the
corps at the present time. He knew Mr. Ross's handwrit-
ing. The letter placed in his hand was written by him.

The letter was then read, It was addressed to Mrs.
Porter, and commenced, "My own beautiful angel," and
contained the most extravagant protestations of love and
admiration for the respondent, and asked her to make him
supremely happy by granting him the sight of her beautiful
and lovely eyes if only for one moment, It was signed
" Willey."

Sarah Preston, housemaid in the service of Mr. Porter,
said she had seen Mr. Ross frequently at her house. On
one occasion she said Mrs. Porter let Mr. Ross out of the
house one night about 12 o'clock, after they had been some
together in the dining-room.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Kerr.)
A WISE ATTORNEY-WHITE V. PRATT.

This was an action to recover a sum of money for services
rendered, plaintiff being a law stationer and defendant an
attorney.

Mr. J. E. Palmer, for the plaintiff, called his client, who
deposed that defendant desired plaintiff's son to go to
Ridky's Hotel for letters, and bring any there might be to
Craven-street, Strand. Plaintiff's son was efficient in lite
business, and plaintiff had charged 2s. per journey.
Cross-examined by Mr. Buchanan, for defendant—l did
not allow my son to do the well, as a favour. Defendant
had paid me about 430 for work in my business.
Plaintiff's son deposed to taking the letters to defendant's
lodgings in Craven-street, and Mr. Buchanan called defen-
dant, who said that he asked plaintiff to allow his son to
bring the letters, and plaintiff replied, " With pleasure."
Defendant never intended to pay anything, but he had paid
X 1 into court to save expenses.
The landlady at the Craven-street house said she called
to Mr. White, jun., from the area, telling him not to bring
any more letters a week after he had commenced doing so,
and his Honour said that he must find for defendant.

Mr. Buchanan--I ask for defendant's expenses and my
own fee.

His Honour granted defendant £2 25., but expressed an
opinion that defendant as an attorney might have con
ducted his own case.

Mr. Pratt—l remembered the old adage, and refrained
from doing so.

His Honour--I forgot that. Yes, I must allow Mr,
Buchanan.

SINGULAR APPLICATION FOR A NEW TRIAL,-LAZARUS

V. BARDLETT.

This was an application for a new trial. Mr. Buchanan,
for the plaintiff, stating that plaintiff had discovered evi-
dence which would fully prove he was entitled to the whole
of his money.
Mr. Abbott. for defendant, said that when the case was
originally tried the learned judge said plaintiff ought either
to take a verdict for 35., or be non suited. He elected to take
a verdict for 3k., and therefore could not now disturb the
judgment of the Court.

His Honour held that plaintiff had, by his own conduct,
in taking a verdict, effectually barred further proceedings,
and refused the application.

IMPORTANT TO TRADESMEN.—LOSELY ♦. BARNES.
This was an action to recover for goods supplied, and on
the part of plaintiff, Mr. Buchanan produced a receipt,
which was handed to defendant, who said the signature was
not his. He had sold his business to a Mr. Riddes, who
was, if anybody was, liable. He had never ordered the
goods of plaintiff, and Mr. Riddes actually agreed to pay.
His Honour said that it had not been shown that defen-
dant had authorised Riddes to order the goods, and there-
fore the verdict would be for defendant.

THE SUN LONDON, SATURD V EITENING JULY 12, 18462.