The Sun.
London, England, 1862-11-21 00:00:00

LAW-THIS D.A.Y.

COURT OF DIVORCE.
GUNNING V. GUNNING.
This was a petition presented by Lavinia Gunning pray-
ing for a dissolution of her marriage on the ground of the
adultery of her husband coupled with bigamy. The rapon-
dent neither appeared nor answered.
The respondent was the son of a clergyman of the Church
of England who held a living near Bath, and the petitioner
was the daughter of a solicitor named Faulkner, practising
at Bath. The petitioner became acquainted with the re-
spondent in consequence of his being p!aced at her father's
office for the purpose of qualifying himself for the
legal profession. 'I he respondent and petitioner were
married at St. Andrew's Church, Holborn, on the 30th of
October, 1838, and he entered into partnership with a
solicitor at Bath, named Gill, and he subsequently became
a partner in the firm of Bourdillion, Austin •friars. In
1858 the respondent got into difficulties, and went to Scot-
land for the purpose of availing himself of the sequestra •
tion law of that country, and he succeeded in freeing him-
self from his liabilities. They lived together for some time
at Dunoon, where the respondent found an acquaintance
with a Miss Turner, with whom he eloped. He wrote to
his wife admitting his misconduct, but they never cohabited
afterwards, and it was discovered that he had married
a female at Liverpool.
The Court granted a decree nisi.
STEWART V. STEWART.
This was a petition presented by the wife, praying for a
dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery and

cruelty.
The counsel for the prosecution called a person named
Atkins to prove the adultery ; but his lordship was of opi-
nion that further evidence would be necessary. An-
other witness, Edward Davis, an assistant to
Mr. Lewis, a superannuated police officer, who
keeps a private inquiry office in the City, said he
went to a house in Thornhill-street, Caledonian-road. He
there took apartments in the same house as the respondent
and co-respondent resided, and while there he saw Mr.
Stewart and Mrs. Willie go out very frequently, and return
home late at night. One night he looked through the key-
hole of the door, which was a very large one, when he saw
a female in her night-dress pass to Mr. stewart's room.
On another occasion he was on the watch when he saw
Mrs. Willie go into Stewart's room. Very shortly
afterwards he heard a peculiar noise proceeding
from a bedstead, and in about half an hour after he
saw Mrs. Willie in her night dress leaving Stewart's room.
The next morning an opportunity offered, and he went into
Stewart's bedroom, and there he found the bed presented
all the appearance of two persons having slept in it.
Other evidence having been given,
The Court granted a rule nisi.
COOK V. COOK AND ELMSALL.
This was a petition presented by Sir William Ridley
Charles Cook for dissolution of his marriage, on the ground
of his wife's adultery with the co-respondent.
The marriage took place in 1855, and towards the be-
ginning of 1861 Lady Cook, who had previously become
acquainted with the corespondent, Mr. Elmsall, separated
from her husband ; and in a short time after, Mr. Arbour,
a clerk to the firm of Messrs. Manser and Gregory, went
to Paris, taking with him a photograph of Lady Cook
and Mr. Elmsall. He there met two persons, and from
the likeness to the pictures he followed them from
France, Lucerne, Zurich, Basle, Milan, and other places.
He always took lodgings in the same hotel as the lady and
gentleman, who passed as man and wife. He then sent for
a groom in the service of Sir W. Cook, and when he arrived,
he at once pointed out the lady and gentleman to him, and
he at once recognised them as Mr. Elmsall and Lady Cook.
He then served the citation on both, neither of them deny-
ing that they were the parties mentioned.
The Court granted a rule nisi, with costs against
Elmsall.

LORD MAYOR'S COURT.
(Before the Recorder and a Common Jury.)

SINGULAR ACTION AGAINST A LIMITED COMPANY-TUCK

V. THE METROPOLITAN DAIRY COMPANY (LIMITED).

This was an action to recover £25, Mr. Hancock appear-
ing for the plaintiff, who is a stationer of Old Broad-street
After briefly opening the case, the learned counsel called
a witness, who stated that the society was registered under
the Joint-Stock Companies' Act as a limited liability com-
pany. _ _ _

- Plaintiff said—l recollect lending the company £5 on the
sth August. I lent it to the manager.
His Lordship—He has no power to bind the ccmpany.
Plaintiff—The secretary had asked me to lend the money.
I was then ordered to print 500 copies of the articles of as-
sociation.

His Lordship—Well, the secretary would hsve authority
to give orders, but certainly not to borrow money.
Plaintiff—Mr. O'Neil, the manager, told me the com-
pany was very much pressed for its rent, and I have seen
the entry in the company's book. Mr. Eccles, the secre-
tary, told me that the company wanted £5 to pay the rent.
His Lordship—lt seems very strange that you should
trust a public company which is obliged to borrow X 5 to
P.y its rein h_ (1"
l'iaintiff—Well, I did not wish to lend the money, but
the manager stuck to me all day. (Iloars of laughter.) He
kept with me from ten in the morning till three in the after-
noon. (Renewed laughter.) The 500 articles were duly
delivered, and the proper charge is £2O.
His Lordship—Well, I think you have proved sufficient
for the jury.

The jury immediately found for the plaintiff, no one ap.
pearing for the company.

POLICE---THIS DAY.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

FRAUDS ON THE BENEVOLENT.—OBTAINING MONEY
BY MEANS OF A FORGED RECEIPT. —John Ridgway, 60
years of age, and who gave the address 10, Brick-street,
St. George's, was charged before Mr. Knox with uttering
a forged receipt, with intent to defraud the Rev. Maxwell
EE an, and others, and thereby obtaining the sum ()fa from
Mr. Egan, at 53, South Audley-street.
From the evidence it appeared that the prisoner went to
Mr. Mark John Lindsay's, surgical instrument maker, 37,
Ludgate-street, and inquired the price of some instrument
for the support of the shoulders, at the same time stating
that he had been recommended by the Rev. Mr. Egan,
senior curate of St. George's, Hanover-square. He then
asked Mr. Lindsay to write a letter enclosing a bill-head for
Mr. Egan's inspection. This Mr. Lindsay did, not sus-
pecting the prisoner's object, and it is supposed that pri-
soner then destroyed the letter and filled up the bill-head
with the words " For making an instrument for the
shoulders, £12," and then affixing a receipt stamp to it,
wrote across it, " Received J. M. Lindsay," reversing,
however, Mr. Lindsay's initials.

Mr. Evans, assistant clerk at St. George's, said the pri-
soner applied to the Rev. Mr. Egan, and in consequence of
Mr. Egan's directions, he paid the prisoner £6. He asked
the prisoner for the bill, and he showed him one purporting
that £6 had been paid, and afterwards another one was to
be produced for the whole amount.

Mr. Lindsay said the receipt produced was not in his
handwriting, neither was it written by his authority.
Dawson, 301 A, proved taking the prisoner into custody,
and on telling him the charge, he said it was true.
Mr. Knox remanded the prisoner for a week.

It is said the prisoner has attempted to obtain money from
Lord Palmerston and others.

APPLICATION RESPECTING A DRINKING FOUNTAIN.—
Three or four tradesmen waited upon Mr. Knox this morn-
ing to complain that in consequence of the large space of
ground occupied by the drinking fountain at the end of
Moon-street, in St. Giles's parish, accidents were frequently
occurring, only one vehicle being enabled to pass at a time
instead of two, as was the case previous to the erection of
the fountain. On the previous night a cab, in attempting to
pass—there being no protecting front—had got on the
raised stone round the fountain, and was turned over, the
driver severely hurting his hand. The whole of the tradesmen
in the street had memorialised the vestry to no purpose, and
they (the applicants) had therefore resolved to wait on his
worship to ask his advice; at the same time they wished it
to be understood they approved of the fountain, having sub-
scribed towards its erection, their only object being to get
the dimensions of the fountain curtailed, its size and un •
protected state causing many accidents.

Mr. Knox asked the applicants whether they had spoken
to the Key. Mr. Thorold, the rector, who would probably
interfere on their behalf ?

The applicants said they had not.

Mr. Knox thought the applicants had no other remedy
but an application to the judges. At the same time, per-
haps, some benefit would arise by publicity being given to
tha application.
The applicants then retired.