The Sun.
London, England, 1865-03-08 00:00:00

LAW INT,

This Da. v

COURT OF DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary and a Common JUl'j.,
WOOLL V. WOOL.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Kerr.)
BARLE V. STRAHAN-AUTHORS' MANUSCRIPTS AND

Mr. Kydd appeared for the plaintiff, Mr. Hance rep
senting defendant.

According to plaintiff's evidence, it was set out that the
plaintiff had written a series of papers, of which she sub-
mitted a portion to Miss Isa Craig. Miss Craig introduced
a portion of the manuscript to the defendant, who agreed
to forward it to Dr. M'Leod, the editor of Good Words. It
had never been inserted, and when plaintiff applied for its
return she could not obtain it. Some letters had passed be-
tween the parties, and finally plaintiff sued defendant for
the value of the missing manuscript.
His Honour suggested that a reference should be taken,
but plaintiff declined, though Mr. Kydd strongly advised
her to follow the Court's recommendation.

Miss Isa, Craig was then called, and stated that defendant
had promised to forward the manuscript to the editor.
In cross-examination she admitted that she always pro-
tected herself when she sent in a paper to a magazine by
keeping a copy. The editors of magazines, as a rule, did
not hold themselves responsible for lost copy.
In re-examination—She believed that the proprietors of
the Cornhill Magazine would return manuscripts if written
to for them. She should think that, as a matter of civility
to an author, a manuscript would be returned if the writer
applied for it.

His Honour could not see how the plaintiff made defen-
dant liable. Before this evidence the theory that the
publishers or editors of magazines were bound to return
manuscripts fell to the ground. There only remained
another point, and that was whether defendant had taken
proper care of the copy. In this instance defendant was a
gratuitous bailee.

Mr. Kydd pointed out that there had been a promise to
give compensation.

His Honour ruled that there was no consideration for
tat promise.

Mr. Hance then called defendant, who admitted receiving
the copy, but deposed to having forwarded it in the usual
way to the editor for his approval. The editor had not re-
turned it.

His Honour upon this held that the defendant was not
liable. Plaintiff must be nohsuited, with costs.
Mr. Hance—Defendant waives all claim to costs.
Plaintiff nonsuited.

SIIIPPING INTELLIGENCE —This day.

LONDON, March B.—Wind this day at noon—North-
Westerly; moderate breeze and fine weather, but rather
cloudy.

KINGROAD, March 6.—Wind S.W.—Arrived—Racer,
from Mauritius.

PORTSMOUTH, March 7.—Wind N.W.—Arrived—Cal-
liana, from Eupatoria. Sailed—Her Majesty's ship Pim-
:ton, for Sheerness.

PILL, March 6.—Wind N.E.—Sailed—Cumbraes, for
he West Coast of Africa.

SOUTHAMPTON, March 7.—Wind
Kathie, for the West Indies.

HOLYHEAD, March 6.—Wind N.W.—Sailed—Rosalie,
for Bombay.

(BY MAGNETIC TELEGRAPH.)

GRAVESEND, Wednesday Morning.
Arrived, March B.—Cologne, Maas, and Fynnoord,
steamers, from Rotterdam; Rhine and Seine, steamers,
from Boulogne ; Arno, steamer, from Hamburg ; Belgium,
steamer, from Ostend ; Harriet, steamer, from St. Valery
River-Clyde, from Calcutta.

DEAL, Wednesday Morning.
Passed—H.M.S, Phaeton, from the West Indies, for the
river ; Esmeralda, schooner, from London, for Brixham ;
Emerald of Dartmouth, from the north, for the west.
Sailed in tow—Goodwas, for London.

COURSE OP EXCHANGE—Last Evening.

1
Amsterdam Short. 11 16
Ditto 3 Months. 11 181
Rotterdam
Antwerp — 25 40
Brussels
Hamburg
Paris Short 25 122
Ditto 3 Months. 25 40
Marseilles
Frankfort on the Maine —120 i
Vienna — 11 522
Trieste — 11 522
Petersburgh
302
Berlin
Madrid
Cadiz
Leghorn
Milan
Genoa
Naples
Palermo
Messina
Lisbon
Oporto

11 16
11 19
11 19
25 47
25 47
13
25 20'
25 45
25 47,

120 f
11 57
11 57

471
47-1-
25 521
25 521
25 521
25 50
25 50
25 50
51}
51k

47
47
25 57
25 57
25 57
25 55'

25 55
25 55
51
514

RACING FIXT

RES FOR 1865.

MA
Liverpool Spring ......... 7
Shrewsbury Spring ...... 10
Doncaster Spring ......... 14
Vincennes .................. 19
Warwick Spring ......... 21

Vincennes
Chelmsford Spring 2B
Grand National Hunt
Barham 3O
Lewes Spring 3O

AP.
Vincennes 2
Northampton . . 4
Croxton Park 7
Newmarket Craven l7
Durham

Canterbury Spring ..... 18
Abergavenny 2O
Thirsk 2l
Cardiff 25
Epsom Spring

M.
Newmarket Ist Spring.., 1
Chester 9
York Spring
Salisbury lB

Bath 23
Harpenden 26
Epsom 3O

OCTO:

Nortliallerton 5
Newmarket 2d Oct
Vincennes

Newmarket Ho. M 23
Vincennes

Vincennes
Chelmsford 7
Manchester Summer 7
Ascot l3
Beverley l4
Liverpool
Alexandra Park 2O

Irampton 2l
Newton
Neweastlo
Odiham
Bidbury
Stockbridge

Newmarket July
Carlisle
Worcester
Abingdon
Stamford l3
Winchester lB

Nottingham
Southampton l9
Chesterfield
Goodwood
Down Royal Corp ___

AUG

Brighton 1
Brighton Club
4
Lewes
Huntingdon
Wolverhampton
Reading
15
Egham
Royal Windsor l7

xsr.
York
Plymouth
Lichfield 2B
Devon and Exeter 29
Derby Summer 3O
Ba Weymouthden
31
Stockton —

SEPTEMBER.
Leicester 7 Monmouth 2l
Doncaster
Brecon lB Newmarket Ist Oct 26
Richmond
NOVEMBER.
Liverp00l Autumn

STEEPLECHASE F.
MARC

'IXTURES FOR 1865.
H.

Liverpool
Shrewsbury
Scarborough 16,4.7 Torquay ...28
APRIL.

This was a petition by the wife for a judicial separation
on the ground of her husband's adultery.
Mr. Sergeant Parry and Dr. Swabey appeared for -the
petitioner, and the Queen's Advocate and Mr. Searle for
the respondent.

From the opening statement of the learned counnel for
the petitioner, it appeared that the marriage took pi age lea
1860, the respondent being at the time a large ! lamer
at Upwell, in the county of Cambridge, and the peti-
tioner, a lady possessed of a fortune of £5,000, which
came under the control of the respondent, as there ~ ras no
marriage settlement. The respondent, prior to the ma rriage,
had had two children by his house-keeper, of which fact
the petitioner was aware at the time of the n tar-
riage. The woman had received an allowai ice,
which was paid through a third party for two years, a fter
which time the respondent paid it himself, and it -was
alleged that the adultery was then committed. It was also
stated that he had committed adultery with a girl named
Kay, who was in his service as housemaid.
This case is not expected to conclude to-day.

MAGAZINES.
This was an action in which the plaintiff, who is an
authoress, sought to recover £5O damages for the non-re-
turn of a certain manuscript, defendant being proprietor
and publisher of Good Words.