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

LAW INTELLIGENCE, Jan. 29.

EQUITY COURTS.
(Before the Lord Chancellor.)
THE GOVERNORS OF ST. THOMAS'S HOSPITAL V. THE

CRARING-CROSS RAILWAY COMPANY,
In this case Vice-Chancellor Wood had granted
an injunction, restraining. the Charing-cross Rail-
way Company from entering on a part of the land
attached to St. Thomas's Hospital, which, with the
hospital and land on which it stands, having been
bought by the company, and the price fixed by
arbitration, workmen had been sent on the bit of
land in question, and had commenced certain work.
The matter now came by appeal to this court, and
the arguments for the appellant had just com-
menced, when
The Lord Chancellor interposed, and urged that
it was desirable that litigation should not go on
between the parties, and as the interruption of
necessary works of the company would involve a
serious loss as well as some public inconvenience, he
suggested that some compromise should be come to.
It was accordingly arranged that the workmen df
the company should be allowed to proceed with the
work on the piece of land to which the dispute re-
lated, the company undertaking that due care should
be taken that the comfort of the inmates of the
hospital in the wing abutting on the piece of land
should not be interfered with ; this arrangement to
be without prejudice to the right of either party to
apply-to the Lord Chancellor to give further direc-
tions in reference to the arrangement, or to apply
to have the hearing of the petition of appeal con-
tinued.

COURT OF DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
FULLER V. FULLER.

Mr. Sergeant Pigott and Dr. Wambey conducted
the petitioner's case.
Mrs. Mary Fuller, the petitioner, charged her
husband, Charles Fuller, with adultery and deser-
tion, and prayed for a dissolution of her marriage.
She was married to the respondent, who is a veteri-
nary surgeon, in February, 1857, and they lived
together at Altonbury, in Huntingdonshire, until
1859. In the early part of that year Mrs. Fuller
found in his coat pocket some letters written to him
by a young lady living in the neighbourhood, and
when she remonstrated with him for carrying en a
clandestine correspondence, he told her that he
hated her and loved the young lady, and he should
leave. On the 2d March, 1859, he left her, and she
saw no more of him, except once about two months
afterwards, when he called at her mother's house
and asked her for some money. She afterwards
went to him at Whittlesea, but he refused to re-
ceive her, and sent her back to her mother. On
the 2d of March last she received a letter from
him, in which he said that he was about to
leave England, and that he should do so with
a great deal of pleasure in order to get rid of her,
that he hated her family, and that he would
rather suffer death than live with her again. In
1860 the respondent was living at a village in Essex,
and eloped with a girl of 16 years of age, the daugh-
ter of a farmer, at whose house he had been staying
for a few days. He lived with her at an inn at
Watford, representing that she was his wife, until
be saw an advertisement in a newspaper offering a
reward for her discovery, and he then sent her back
to her parents.
Decree nisi granted with costs.
GAMBLE V. GAMBLE.

Mr. Powell appeared for the petitioner.
The marriage in this case took place in 1842, and
shortly afterwards the parties were appointed mas-
ter and mistress of a national school at Slough. The
respondent, Joshua Gamble, lost his situation, and
they then lived in different parts of London. Mrs.
Gamble charged her husband with having beaten
and illused her in various ways from the time of the
marriage until 1852, when they separated. In the
same year he went through the ceremony of mar-
riage with a woman named Herrington, at Poplar,
and afterwards lived with her as her husband.
Decree nisi granted with costs.
BAMFORD V. BAMFORD.

Dr. Phillimo;e,Q.C., and Dr. Wambey appeared
for the petitioner. The respondent had entered an
appearance, but filed no answer.
Dr. Phillimore stated that the petitioner, Mtg.
Lavinia Jane Andrews Bamford, prayed for a judi-
cial separation on the ground of her husband's adul-
tery. She was the daughter of Admiral Sir Edward
Chetham, who, since his daughter's marriage, had
take the surname of Strode. The respondent, Cap-
tain Robert Carter Bamford, had been in the 73d,
59th, and 63d Regiments successively, but had now
sold out of the service. The marriage took place at
Alverstoke on the 11th February, 1843. The adul-
tery was charged with various women, but the
respondent having eloped with a lady named Agnes
Serrel, and lived with her at Pangbourne, it would
be unnecessary to prove; more than his cohabita-
tion with her.
Admiral Sir E. Chetham-Strode proved the mar-
riage of his daughter with Captain Bamford, and
said they had visited at his house at South•hill, in
Somerset, and that he had visited them at their
residence at South Norwood. They were living
together down to September, 1860.
Joseph Heywot,d, a clerk to the petitioner's
attorney, proved that he had served Captain Bam-
, ford with the citation in February last, at the George
Hotel, at Pangbourne. Captain Bamford said that
if his wife chose to leave him for no reason, he had
a right to go off with her cousin if he pleased. He
also sent his compliments to the petitioner's attor-
ney with the message that he was " as happy. as a
sandboy," and had never known what happiness
was before.
Mr. Seymour, the landlord of the George Hotel,
proved that in February last Captain Bamford was
living at his house with a lady whom he had before
known as Miss Rigby. Captain Bamford said he
had married her, and they lived at his hotel as man
and wife for about two months. _

His lordship decreed a judicial separation. ,
CIIILMAN V. CIIILMAN AND HOW.

Mr. Karslake, Q C., and Mr. A. Staveley Hill
appeared for the petitioner.
The petitioner was a clerk in an insurance office.
He married the respondent in January, 1845, lived
with her in different parts of London, and had seven
children by her. In D.-?.cember, 1857, he was obliged
to separate from her in consequence of her having
taken to drinking, and he made her an allowance
of £1 a week. In September, 1860, she went to,
Dublin to stay, as she represented, with some
friends who were living there. The petitioner
soon afterwards discovered that she had formed
an adulterous connexion with a man named
How. He caused inquiries to be made, and
obtained evidence that How and Mrs. Chilman
had cohabited as man and wife at Dublin and at
other places.
Decree nisi granted, with costs against the co-
respondent.

CENT R4L CRIMINAL COURT.—,Iiin, 29•

OLD COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron Channell.)
Walter Crane, 22, a determined-looking young
man, described in the calendar as a traveller, was
charged with feloniously wounding Christopher
Crane, with intent to murder him. In other counts
of the indictment the intent of the prisoner was
laid to be to do the prosecutor grievous bodily harm.
Mr. Daly prosecuted, the prisoner had no counsel.
The circumstances under which this charge was
preferred against the prisoner were of a very extra-
ordinary character. It appeared that he and the
prosecutor were brothers, the latter being the elder
of the two by a few years. He had been abroad,
but had returned to England, and he met the pri-
soner accidentally on the 3d of December in the
neighbourhood of Islington, not having seen him
previously for a period of two years. They went
to a coffeeshop and had some refreshment, and the
prisoner asked his brother to meet him on the fol-
lowing night, for the purpose, as he said, of intro-