The Sun.
London, England, 1862-01-30 00:00:00

rnE sum LONDON, THURSOA.YIZEVENING, RJANUARYI 30, 1862.

LAW lATELLIG.ENCE.—(This Day.)

COURT OF CHANCERY.
(Before the Lord Chancellor.)
lUDGMENT-DAVIS V. BENNETT.

At the conclusion of the arguments of counsel on both
sides on the point reserved, whether the adjective "respec-
tively," in the testator's will, had a retrospective and pro-
spective operation and subdivision of the residue of the
testator's property. The Lord Chancellor was of opinion
that the residue of the testator's property was diviseable
into four r ortions—one portion was to be taken by Jane,
one portion by Mary ; one portion to Anne, and one por-
tion to Elizabeth inter se, and as tenants in common ; and
that the second subdivision is to their lawful issue respec-
tively. Costs up to the hearing will be costs in the cause.

ROLLS COURT.

(Before the Master of the Rolls, Sir John Romilly.)

JUDGMENT-GERRARD V. FRANKEL.

His Honour the Master of the Rolls said—This bill was
filed to rectify a mistake constituted by inserting in the
lease of a house in Oxford••street for 14 or 21 years a sum
for rent of £l3O instead of X 230. His Honour, on consider•
ing the evidence on both sides, came to the conclusion that
the mistake was accidental, and must be reformed.
His honour decreed that if the defendant elected to take the
lease she must pay as rent £230 per annum, under a new
lease, and deliver up the original documents to be cancelled,
and pay occupation rent at that rate, and set off the expense
of fitting up and repairs against the rent. As the house
and shop have been burned down, the insurance will stand
in place of the premises. And that the mortgagees or
assignees shall have a claim for their mortgage and costs
against the plaintiff or defendant, according to the result
of her election. If the parties cannot agree within:l4 days,
allow the case to be mentioned to his honour at Chambers.
No costs of suits against the defendants.

DIVORCE COURT.
(Before Sir C. Cresswell.)
SERREL V. SERREL AND BAMFORD.

This was a petition of the husband, a solicitor, praying
for a divorce on the ground of bis wife's adultery with
Captain Bamford, who was respondent in the suit heard
yesterday, in which his wife obtained a decree of judicial
separation.
The respondent pleaded denial, and that the husband
had condoned to her misconduct. She pleaded also that
the marriage was null, and prayed the court on that ground
to dissolve her marriage, The co-respondent simply denied
the allegations of the petitioner,
Dr. Phillimore, Q_C., and Dr. Swabey appeared for the
petitioner; and Dr. Deane, Q.O , and Dr. Spinks for the
respondent.
The parties were married in February, 1854, at which time
the petitioner was 30, and the respondent, whose maiden
name was Rigby, 20 years of age. They had no children,
but according to the allegations in the petition, they lived
happily until the year 1860, when she became intimate with
Captain Bamford, who was a cousin of the petitioner. The
alleged elopement took place, and Captain Bamford and Mrs.
Serrel lived together as man and wife.
Major Robert Cumming was examined by Dr. Phillimore,
and stated that he had known the petitioner and his wife
for about 15 years. He identified the handwriting of both
in the marriage register, and that of Mrs. Serrel in the
letter produced. He had been in the habit of visiting them
frequently, and during the last seven years they resided at
No. 101, Gloucester-terrace, Hyde-park, and they were
on very happy terms.

Benjamin Henry Lee was examined by Dr. Swabey, and
deposed that he had lived in the service of Mr. Serrel from
the end of July, 1858, till January, 1861. He knew Captain
Bamford and his wife, who were in the habit of visit-

ing at Mr. Serrel's, at Lower Norwood, and—resided
at South Norwood, which was about half a mile
distant. Mr. Serrel generally went to business about
topthuerihnouse alone. This was in
gierrel remained about three weeks
ten o'clock in the morning,
During his
hirsetuabrnsee:ilceabocuatptasiinx
loB'
Bamfordcl
otic ka
ndi nsi‘orrt
.he
ateinmdeevs:ienraisnm.
at Lower Norwood. Mrs. Serrel went to Brighton, and she
and her husband returned to Gloucester-terrace in October,
186). Capt. Bamford visited her there, and on these occa-
sions he-used to remain with her longer than when she was
staying at Norwood. Mrs. Serrel gave him a note for Capt.
Bamford, which he delivered, That was about Christ-
mas, 1860. After that Mr. Serrel gave him a letter, ad-
dressed to Captain Bamford, which he also delivered,
and on that occasion Captain Bamford said, " Mrs.
Serrel wishes me to come, but Mr. Serrel says
I am not to go. What am Ito do ?" After that Cap-
tain Bamford visited Mrs. Serrel as before. He had seen
them go out together more than once. Mr. Serrel kept a
carriage, and he (witness) sometimes accompanied Mrs.
Serrel when she drove out. They frequently met Captain
Bamford, and he was generally taken into the carriage, but
used to leave it before they reached home. On one occa-
sion, when Captain Bamford was at the house. Mr. Serrel
returned home to lunch, and Captain Bamford went up-
stairs. He afterwards came down and remained in the
pantry, and then went into the bedroom of witness, which
enjoined it, and said he c' uld wait there until it was
dark. He used to take up candles to Mrs.
Sorrel's drawing-room, and on .one occasion he found the
door locked. He knew that Captain Bamford and Mrs.
Serrel were in the room, and he knocked at the door, but
received no answer. He placed the candles down and went
down stairs, and in about five minutes afterwards he heard
the door unlocked. He went up and took the candles in.
Mrs. Serrel was lying on the sofa, and Captain Bamford
was standing at the window. That was about December,
1860. Mrs. Serrel left home about the latter end of that
month or the commencement of January, 1861. He was
then discharged with the rest of the servants. He always
considered Mr. Serrel kind and affectionate to his wife.
Mary Ann Holmes stated that she was in service with
Mr. Serrel in February, 1863, and remained at his house
for about 11 months. She went with him and Mrs, Serrel
to Lower Norwood in 1860, and afterwards accompanied
Mrs. Serrel to Brighton, where she was visited by Captain
Bamford. Mr. Serrel came occasionally to Brighton, She
had seen Mrs. Serrel and Captain Bamford at lunch there
together, and ono day he called and saw Mrs. Serrel while
she was ill. He was in the habit of visiting her when she
returned to Glocester-terrace. On the morning of the elope-
ment she came down stairs dressed for going out, and Cap-
tain Bamford said she was going to see her sister. They
left together. She had not told Mr. Serrel anything about
Captain Bamford's visits.
Jesse Seymour,who was examined in the case of "Bam-
ford v. Bamford," repeated his evidence, which was to the
effect that Captain Bumford and Mrs. Serrel were living at
his hotel at Pangbourne as man and wife, for about two
months.

Proof was then given as to the witness having identified
Captain Bamford and Mrs. Serrel as being the parties who
had been staying at his house in 1,61, which closed the
petitioner's case.
Medical evidence was given to sustain the respondent's
plea, but it failed to establish the charge of mental incom-
petency, and the Court pronounced the decree nisi with
costs agaiut the co-respondent.

COURT OF
.BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Goulburn.)
IN RE FRANKUM.

In this case an adjudication had been made by the re-
gistrar, and to-day was appointed for his last examination,
but he had not filed any account.

Mr. Sorrell said that the adjudication had been against
the will of the bankrupt, who, whatever he might suffer
himself by delay, was anxious that his estate should be
made available for the benefit of his creditors generally,
and not be held by ene. He (Mr. Sorrell) therefore had to
apply that the adjudication should be annulled.
His Honour said the question was whether the court
could review the adjudication of the registrar.
Mr. Sorrell—lf your honour cannot, no doubt you will
enlarge the time for surrender. Eventually, no doubt, the
bankruptcy will be annulled.

His Honour—That is a questionable matter; but have I
the power to enlarge the time?

Mr. Sorrell—l submit your honour can do that. Here
is one creditor holding possession onan alleged right, which
is disputed. The bankrupt is only anxious to protect his
creditors generally.

His*Honour—Can I do anything short of adjourning the
case sine die ?

Mr. Sorrell—lf you will enlarge the time for surrender
the case will stand very different at the next meeting.
His Honour—Has anything been done to annul the
bankruptcy ?
Mr. Sorrell—Not at present.

His Honour ultimately enlarged the time for surrender
and referred the case to Mr. Aldridge, the Crown solicitors
to watch the proceedings.

MURDER IN YORKSHIRE.—Two men, weavers,
from Brompton, Northallerton, Yorkshire, were proceed-
ing along a street in the latter place on their way home,
after having been drinking, when ono of them named
Todd called out to a watchmaker named Metcalfe,
" What o'clock is it ?" Metcalfe, who was drunk, re-
plied, " Pll lot you know what o'clock it is, and disappeared
up a passage. Presently the weavers turned round, and
saw Metcalfe with a gun pointed at them. It was fired, and
Parker fell, shot in the arm. On medical assistance being
procured, the shot was extr, cted ; the wounded man, how-
ever, became insensible, and the next morning, as the only
chance of saving his life, the shattered limb was amputated.
He expired 10 minutes after the operation. As soon as the
sho was fired, Todd rushed upon the murderer, and a ter-
rible struggle ensued. The gun was double-barrelled, and
Todd asserts that the murderer tried to get the muzzle
against him, in order to draw the other trigger. A man
named Walker, who lives in the same passage as Metcalfe,
heard the report of a gun, and ran out. He met Metcalfe
.d
with a gun in his hands, asked him what was the matter,
and was answered, " I've been ill-used by two Brompton
men, but I've let them know." The prisoner was brought
up before the magistrates on Monday, and committed to take
his trial for wilful murder at the ensuing assizes. It appears
gun a
eNrowa words,
Poaching he was heard to
say,at
a hare, "Good evening, Miss
Pussey, I'll lat you know what o'clock it is," and since then
has
bwoeneheneent whenaluevnetel
levelling
theg
withri prisoner
ho ne
r