The Sun.
London, England, 1865-04-29 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE—(Tills Day).

COURT OF DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
Pnrr.Taps V. PRIT.T.IPS AND MEDLIN*. •
This suit was commenced last term. It was a petition
presented by the petitioner, a miner, in Cornwall, praying
for dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery with
the co-respondent.

The evidence adduced showed that Mr. Phillips left
' England in 1853, and did not return until 1830 ; and it
was alleged that during this absence the adultery was com-
mitted. The evidence offered on the part of the petitioner
was a young girl named Andrews, who said that the par-
ties always occupied one bedroom, and a Mr. Bray, both
of whom spoke to circumstances which tended to prove
the allegations in the petition. Mr. Bray said he had lived
in the house some time, and ho always thought she was
Mrs. Medlyn, and he never heard anything about Mr.
Phillips until ho was expected on his return to Eng-
land. He had seen females' gowns hanging up
in Mr. Medlyn's room, and also lying about on
the bed and chairs, and, in fact, that the room
had all the appearance of being occupied by a married
couple. He never looked upon Mrs. Phillips as a servant
to Medlyn.

For the respondent a witness, a domestic servant who
had resided at the house all the time Bray was there, named
Caroline Riddle, was called. She swore positively the
reverse of all the witness Bray had stated. She: distinctly
swore that the dresses of Mrs. Phillips were never hung
up in Mr. Medlyn's room, and also that she was at the
house all the time the witness Bray was there, and during
the entire of the period of time Mrs Phillips and she occu-
pied one bed every night. .
Dr. Spinks, who appeared for the petitioner, proposed to
call a witness to contradict Riddell and confirm Bray.
The Judge Ordinary said that might be done, as the case
at present stood it was oath against oath ; a matter he
would have to decide.

Mary Reynolds was then placed in the box and said she
know Mrs. Phillips very well, and used to go frequently
into the house. She had seen Mrs. Phillip's clothes lying
on the bed and chairs in Mr. Medlyn's room.
Dr. Waunby, the counsel for the repondent, remarked
that it was very remarkable that his learned friend did not
call Mary Reynolds ,while he was proving his case. She
had been in court during the whole of the time Riddle was
under examination, and after she hae heard all she had
deposed to, she was called forward to contradict ii.
The learned counsel having addressed the court,
The Judge Ordinary said he had no doubt whatever as
to his decision, He looked upon it as a disgraceful at-
tempt to throw dust in the eyes of the court by the girl
Riddle. He therefore granted a decree for the petitioner,
with costs against the co-respondent.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before the Registrar.)
COLONEL 'WAUGH AGAIN A BANKRUPT..
Colonel Waugh was adjudicated a bankrupt upon his
own petition last evening (he being now a prisoner for
debt). It will be remembered that Col. Waugh was very
recently discharged, but as the original bankruptcy was in
1857, such order will not operate to clear him from any
debts contracted since that date.

'ERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF LORDS—LAST EVENING.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack al
the usual hour.

--
THE SITE FOR THE NEW COURTS BILL.

Lord Cranworth, Lord Chelmsford, and the Lord Chan-
cellor presented petitions in favour of the Carey-street site
for the new law courts.

The Earl of DERBY presented a petition from Mr. Rigby
Warne in favour of a different site, more economical to
suitors and the profession.
INDIAN OFFICERS.

The Earl of DERBY presented petitions on behalf of
certain officers in the Indian army, praying for redress of
their grievances.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The following bills were read a second time :—Earl of
Winchelsea's Estate, London and South Western Rail-
way (new lines in Surrey), and Midhurst Railway.
The following bills were read a third time and
passed : Witham Drainage, School for the In-
digent Blind Act Amendment, Lymington River
Improvement, Aylesbury and Buckingham Railway,
West Cornwall Railway, Kilrush and Kilkee Railway and
Poulnasherry Reclamation, Assam Company (with amend-
ments), Brighton, Hove, and Preston Constant Service
Water, and Crystal Palace Gas (with amendment).
COURTS OF JUSTICE BUILDING BILL.

The Lord CHANCELLOR, in second read-
ing of the bill, said that the accommodation at present
offered, both in the construction and locality of the exist-
ing courts of law, was quite inadequate, and actually ob-
structive of the proper administration of the law. The offices
of the courts of law were also scattered about in different
localities in a manner most inconvenient. He contended
that a concentration of the courts of law and equity was
necessary, and its expediency was admitted so far back as
1822, and it was to meet that requirement that the present
bill was introduced. The same necessity that existed for
the concentration of the courts rendered it also imperative
that the most eligible site for their erection should be
selected. The site which he proposed was, in his opinion,
the most desirable, for it was in the neighbour-
hood of the Temple, and the different inns of
court, and of the offices of solicitors. With re-
ference to the financial part of the question, this
bill presented sonic, remarkable features. In the first
place, the £200,000 to be advanced by Government would
be amply repaid by the property which they would come
into possession of. In the next place, the " Suitors' Fund"
was to be taken into consideration. That fund amounted
to £2,931,047, which was public property, and with which
the bill did not propose to deal. But the profits in the
eoursA of time had attained to the amount of £1,291,629,
out of which he proposed to take £1,000,000.
That sum was to be advanced by the Government at a
charge of 31 per cent., to be payable out of the resources
of the courts. ' The great wurk proposed would therefore
not cost the country one farthing, and would be accom-
plished by the application of a fund in a manner that was
quite justifiable, and which would be advantageous both to
the legal profession and the suitors in common law and
equity. The noble and learned lord then entered into some
details illustrative of this point, and concluded by moving
the second reading of the bill.
Lord ST. LEONARDS did not object to the concentra-
tion of the law courts, but he contended that a proper fund
should be found for the purpose. He must, however, ob-
serve that this measure would not effect a complete con-
centration of the courts, for it would not bring the Central
Criminal Court or the Court of Bankruptcy under the same
roof as the rest of the courts. On the other hand, he ob-
jected strongly to the Divorce Court and to the court in
which a Master of Lunacy would sit being thus located.
He was also of opinion that it was not desirable to remove
the equity courts from Lincoln's Inn. He admitted that two
of the Vice-Chancellors' Courts were very indifferent, but
it was not requisite to pass thismeasure in order to provide
the necessary accommodation, because Lincoln's Inn had
offered to build new courts. On the other hand, the courts
of the Lord Chancellor, of the Lords Justices, of the Master
of the Rolls, and of the Vice-Chancellor, were open to no
objection ; and it was perfectly absurd to abandon them.
Let the common law courts be removed to the Carey-street
site if it was thought fit, but let the equity courts remain
where they were. There would then be quite enough con-
centration, for the distance between the two sets of courts
would be very small. The Lord Chancellor had told them
that the proposed site consisted of 7 acres ; but he had
not told themthat it is covered with houses and warehouses,
and that it is inhabited by more than 4,000 people, 3,700 of
whom belonged to the labouring classes. Where were these
people to be sent to, and what was to become of them ?
The result must be that the people would carry with them
elsewhere the fever which was always rife amongst them,
and that they would overcrowd and overpopulate other
districts. He contended that, if the Government removed
these people, it was bound to provide dwellings for them.
The great question, however, was, where was the money
for the construction of these ,new courts to come from ?
He believed that no reliance could be placed upon the
estimates laid before them with reference either to the
cost of the site or of the construction of the new
buiding. The cost of providing proper access would
be much greater than was supposed. Means of
approaching the new building from Holborn must
be secured. It would never do to make the

Strand the only means of approach. Indeed, the contiguity
of the courts to the Strand was one of the main objections
be entertained to the scheme, because it would plunge those
who had to administer justice into the midst of noise and
turmoil. But the great objection he had to the bill was
that it proposed to appropriate the Suitors' Fund to a pur-
pose to which it was not fairly applicable. He utterly
clarricrl that, tinier -rrevo m ralcrlio fund. To baleo Maio monoT
was, in fact, nothing short of confiscation, and was totally
at variance with the principles of the constitution under
which we lived. The public had no right to touch this fund,
which ought to be applied for the exclusive benefit of the
suitors•of the Court of Chancery. The principle for which
he contended had been admitted in 1852, when the salaries
of the Vice-Chancellors, which had been previously charged
upon this fund, were charged upon the Consolidated Fund,
on the ground that the salaries of judges should be paid by
the public, and not by the suitors. But if this really was a
public fund, such a transaction would have been absurd.
The noble lord concluded by repeating, with great em-

phasis, his objections to the proposed application of the
Suitors' Fund. By law, and by every principle of honour
and justice, this fund stood pledged to the suitors in Chan-
cery for the reduction of their fees.

The Duke of ARGYLL thought it was clear the Suitors'
Fee Fund was at the disposal of Parliament. The noble
lord had not even contended that this fund belonged to any
particular suitors. All he said was that it belonged to the
suitors as a class. But how could they deal with the
suitors as a class ? The Legislature had, in point of fact,
constantly dealt with this fund as a public fund, charging
it at pleasure, with various payments. He thought that the
fund ought never to have been accumulated to the extent
that it had accumulated ; but however that might be, it
belonged to no particular body of suitors, and was both at
the disposal and for the good of the country.
Lord CRANWORTH doubted whether a single six-
and-eightpence would be reduced from the cost of legal
proceedings by the concentration of courts of law, but
there could be no doubt whatever that suitable accom-
modation for those who passed their lives in the adminis-
tration of the law was a very legitimate object, and one
that the Legislature might very fairly take in hand. As
regarded the funds, the money must be forthcoming, and
whenever the State undertook to be responsible for the

money it was perfectly entitled to take it for any particular

purpose.

Lord REDESDALE objected to the expenditure of
£150,000 for a purpose that he did not consider to be de-

sirable. The English courts of law had been held at West•

minster from the earliest ages of the constitution, and now
when railways and the Thames Embankment would place
those courts almost at the doors of the Temple and Lin-
coln's-inn, he saw no sufficient reason for the removal.
The site proposed was not only highly inconvenient of ac-

cess, but would if adopted involve the destruction of a large
amount of house property.

The bill was read a second time.
The Courts of Justice Concentration Bill was also read
a second time.

The house then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—=LAST EVENING.
The SrEAKPat took the chair at four o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The following bills were read a third time and
Passed :—Crofthead and Kilmarnock Extension Railway ;
Dewsbury, Batley, and Heckmondwike Water ; East and
West India Dock Company; Fareham Gas; London and
South-Western Railway (Torrington Extension); London,
Brighton, and South Coast Railway (Additional Powers) ;
Metropolis Sewage and Essex Reclamation ; Newtown
Water ; North London, Highgate, and Alexandra Park
Railway ; Rastrick Gas ; Saint John's Chapel (Portsea) ;
and South Essex Railway.
GREENOCK RAILWAY BILL.
Mr. E. P. BOUVERIE moved that the Greenock Rail-
way Bill be recommended to the former committee.
A discussion ensued, in which many hon. members ex-
pressed a hops that the house would uphold the decision of
the court of referees, who had reported that the estimates
contained in the bill were made out in a vague and unsatis-
factory manner. The select committee to which the bill
was referred, acting on this, threw out the bill.
Mr. DODSON said as the referees had not reported that
the estimates were insufficient, but vague and unsatisfac-
tory, he thought it would be advisable to recommit the

The house then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it
Majority 34
The bill was accordingly ordered to be recommitted.
GLASGOW CITY, SUBURBAN, AND HARBOUR

RAILWAY BILL.

Mr. WYLD moved that this bill be recommitted to the

former committee.
The motion, after a few words from Sir F. a....OLDsmm,
was withdrawn.