The Sun.
London, England, 1865-07-29 00:00:00

LAW INT.

'his day.

COURT OF CHANCERY.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Kinder&My.)
ROBSON V. WETTINGIIAM-JUDGMENT.

- The learned Judge, having referred to the models of the
respective premises, directed an inquiry before deciding
the question at issue. ,

(5j J I i

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Kerr.)
THE LIABILITY OF HUSBANDS TO PAY FOR NECESSARIES.-M-

PORTANT DECISION.—YELP V. STORER.
This was an action to recover for necessaries supplied to
the defendant's wife.

122}
1001
51}

11371 61 71 6

1101

Plaintiff stated that he had boarded Mrs. Storer and paid
for her lodgings, sho being in a destitute condition at the
time.

In cross-examination by Mr. Honey for defendant, plain-
tiff deposed that Mrs. Storer was not allowed anything by
her husband, from whom she was separated, at the time he
provided her with necessaries. He was not aware that
she had an allowance of 50s. per week when she had the
caro of six children.

Mr, Honey— She had that sum ?
A Female Voice—lt is false.

596
63} 3

Plaintiff—l do not know what sho had. When I re-
lieved her sho was lying on the bare boards.
Mr. Honey—She had 12e. per week when sho kept ono
child.
A female voice—No.

His Honour directed that the female should be removed
from the court.

103} i

103 }

11/ 12

Mr. Honey then urged that a married woman was not
entitled to pledge her husband's credit when her allowance
was stopped in consequence of her getting intoxicated.
His Honour held that the wife was entitled to pledge
her husband's credit if she was in want of necessaries, and
had not committed adultery.
Mr. Honey said that a relative had no right to interfere.
The proper persons to assist the wife were the parish
authorities, and in this case plaintiff was a relative.
His Honour, having inquired into defendant's circum-
stances, was of opinion that plaintiff had made out a case,
and found a verdict for the amount claimed.
Verdict for the plaintiff with costs.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—This Day.

1001

ITIES.

81 }

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

STEALING JEWELLERY.—W. James Feaver, page in th•
service of Lady Caroline Thynne, Upper Brook-street,
Grosvenor-square, was charged before Mr. Knox with
stealing some gold bracelets and other property belonging
to her ladyship.

Sergeant Mulwaring, 24 A, said—On the 21st instant I
went to the residence of Lady Caroline Thynne, and found
that the prisoner had absconded, taking with him a quan-
tity of jewellery and other valuable property. I found
the woodwork of a drawer had been cut and forced. Yes-
terday, from information I received from the superinten-
dent of police at Dover, I went there and took the prisoner
into cnstody. On telling him the charge, he said it was
all true, and that he had done it through reading the " Lifo
of Jack Sheppard." On searching his box I found in it the
work in question. If remanded I shall be able to produce
the whole of the property.

The prisoner—l have no questions to ask; it is all true.
fir. Knox remanded the prisoner.

WESTMINSTER.

VIOLENT ASSAULT BY A PRIVATE OF THE GRENADIER
GUARDS.—AIfred George Lilly, a private of the Grenadier
Guards, was brought before Mr. Selfe charged with a
violent assault.

It appeared that the previous night at a late hour the
prisoner and the complainant were in a house in Bull's-
yard, and that some words arose between them, when the
complainant was knocked down by the prisoner. Com-
plainant was unable to rise, and it was thought by him
(complainant) that his leg was broken. Prisoner was
taken to the station house, and the complainant was con-
veyed in a cab to the hospital.

Mr. Self() inquired what was the injury the complainant
had received ?

Police-constable 187 B, said that on the previous night,
between ten and eleven o'clock, he was in Bull's-yard,
when he was informed of the assault. Witness went to
No. 37, and found the prisoner in a room which ho had
fastened. Witness forced open the door and took the pri-
soner into custody. Ho had been to the hospital that
morning, and was told by the surgeon that complainant
had received a severe injury. He could not tell for a few
days whether ho had received a fracture until the swelling
had abatted. He was informed that when the prosecutor
was down he was kicked most violently by the prisoner.
The prisoner was remanded.

In this case the plaintiffs, Messrs. Robson and Harris,
were owners in fee of the house No. 17, Duke-street, near
Chancery-lane, which they lot to a Mr. Battershead, who
sub-let a portion of the premises. The house of the plain-
tiffs stood on the east side of the defendant's, on the west
side of the street. The house of the defendant necessarily
impeded the admission of light and air to the premises of
the plaintiffs, and some time back he pulled it down and
erected another on the site, which, the plaintiffs alleged,
was so constructed as to still further diminish the light and
air of their premises, for which inconvenience they claimed
damages. The defendant alleged that the complaint was
142 2 trivial, and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any com-
pensation.