The Sun.
London, England, 1862-05-21 00:00:00

MIJNBEE'S DIVORCE.

As this house still retains its jurisdiction in cases
of divorce between subjects of her Majesty resident
in India, the following case carne beforl their lord-
ships this day. The petitioner, Gore Boland Mum-
bee, is a Lieut.-Colonel of Engineers in that part of
her Majesty's Indian army attached to the presi-
dency of Bombay. On the 28th of :3eptember, 1846,
the petitioner, bong then 31 years of age, was
married to Sophia Catherine Frankland, spinster,
aged 23, at the church of Sattara, in the presidency
of Bombay, according to the rites and ceremonies of
the Church of England. The parties lived and
cohabited together as man and wife at Poona and
Mahableshewar from the date of their marriage till
April, 1851, when thQy left India, and came together
to England. Colonel Muntee returned to India at
the end of 1852, leaving his wife behind on account
of ill health, but she rejoined him at Bombay, in the
spring of 1854. In 1857 she again came to England
from ill health, her husband's military duties detain-
ing him in India, and she returned in March, 1859,
and then cohabitation continued till January, 1860,
when Colonel Munbee was obliged to go on a tour
of military inspection which involved a separation
of a few months from his wife, whom he left with
her sister, the wife of a brother officer, at Poona,
subsequently at Mahableshewar. A legacy having
been left to Mrs. Munbee, she entered into a corre-
spondence with her husband, and induced him to
settle money upon her to her separate use. On
19th May; 1860, Mrs. Munbee left Mahableshe-
war, and proceeded under an assumed name by
way of Bombay to Surat, where she was joined
by Charles Payne Barras, a lieutenant in the
29th Native Infantry, with whom she eloped for
Dohna on the 22d of May, 1860; since which time
she has been living in open adultery with him. On
the 26th May, 1860, Mrs. Munbee addressed the
toitowies Icttcr fel her Imcbcon,l • --.

" May 26, 1360.

" I have at last taken a step which will enable You to re-
lease yourself and me from a tie which has become each
year more irksome to both. I cannot hope that at first oven
the recollection of the miserable terms on which we have
long lived will reconcile you to my having sought the pro-
tection of Captain Barras; but if you take the only proper
course open to you under the circumstances, you will in the
end congratulate yourself on my having done so. What I
have now done is done after long and mature consideration,
and I have well weighed all the disadvantages attending
such a step, and prefer setting every consideration at de-
fiance to continuing to lead a hopless, aimless, and miser-
able life. Circumstances so far favour you that the usual
talk and scandal attending such a case may be entirely
avoided. I have made no confidante, and am going to such
an isolated place that if you choose to apply immediately for
a divorce nothing need be known until you are thereby rid
of me. You may choose not to afford me the release which I
desire. If so, you will regret it hereafter, and the disgrace
of my position will be reflected upon yeu. Nor can you
satisfy yourself by a hostile meeting with Captain Barras;
for my sake he cannot and will not give you such satisfac-
tion • duelling too is out of fashion, and redress by law
within your reach. If you seek damages' only you will
oblige me to bring forward evidence of a disagreeable na-
ture, to prove that us happy home has been destroyed, and
you must fail in gaining them ; therefore for your own
sake, if not for mine, refrain from such a course.'
An action for criminal conversation was brought by
Colonel Munbee in the Supreme Court at Bombay
against Lieut. Barras, in which judgment went by
default, and 3,000 rupees damages awarded, which,
with the costs, were duly paid. A seperation
niensa et thoro was also obtained in the ecclesiasti-
cal side of the Supreme Court ; and the present bill
was introduced for the purpose of dissolving the
marriage.
Mr. Lush, with whom was Mr. Macqueen, ap-
peared for the petitioner, and stated the case.
The printed evidence as to criminal intercourse
and subsequent elopement and cohabitation, which
was taken and verified in India, was put in ; and
witnesses having been examined to give additional
proof of the marriage,
The bill was read a second time.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
Sittings in Nisi Prias.
(Before Mr. Justice Wightman end a Common Jury.)
RATHERA Y. CLARK.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a
jockey, against the defendant, a gentleman well-
known on the turf, to recover the sum of £B3 19s.
for services rendered as a jockey. The defendant
pleaded, first, never indebted ; and, secondly, pay-
ment.
Mr. Murphy was counsel for the plaintiff; and
Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr. Best for defendant.
Mr. Murphy, having opened the plaintiff's case,
called the following witnesses :
The plaintiff said—l am a jockey, and have had
great experience in horses. In the Liverpool Spring
races of 186 G I met the defendant upon the race
course. Priest, who was one of the defendant's
jockeys, introduced mo to him. The defendant asked
me what weight I rode. I told him, and we then
agreed that I should go into his service as a jockey,
at a salary of £4O per annum. I was never to ride
any other gentleman'ssn's horse in the same race. I
was to have 5 guineas for a winning mount, and 3
guineas for a losing one. I had leave to ride other
gentlemen's horses for other races. I was in the
defendant's service until the middle of the 3 ear
1857, when I was turned off by the defendant,
with several other jockeys. During the time that
I was in defendant's employ I rode Lady
Florence at Ascot, but did not win. At the same
meeting I rode South Western, and won the £5O
stakes. I rode Lady Florence again at the same
meeting, but did not win. I rode Weathercock at
Hampton-court, Yorkshireman at Goodwood, York-
shireman at Doncaster, Eagle at Manchester, and
Yorkshireman again at Lichfield. I did not win
on either of those occasions. The defendant never
paid me a shilling for my services. Since I left the
defendant's employ I have been living with Colonel
Cockburn (Lord Seaton's son) and Lord Stamford.:
Cross-examined—At the time I made the agree
ment with the defendant I was about eighteen years
old. I was not engaged as a stable boy. Mr. Bur-
bridge was the trainer at the defendant's establish-
ment atuse five guineas
for my
I did not engage at a salary of ss.
services. Edgeford. He did not pay
per week. I lived at Edgeford, and my board and
lodging was found me. I used sometimes to take
the horses out for exercise.
Priest was called, and corroborated the plaintiff
as to the defendant having engaged the latter in his
(the witness's) place as a jockey. Witness was
obliged to summon the defendant in the Brompton
County Court before he would pay him his salary.
The defendant afterwards took out a summons
against witness for perjury, but had abandoned it.
Cross- examined—He did not know that the
reason why defendant did not appear to answer the
summons in the county court was in consequence of
the funeral of his mother taking place on the same
day. He was discharged in consequence of being
too heavy to ride. He was paid £2O per annum,
and five guineas for winning mounts and three
guineas for losing, ones.
Re-examined— The plaintiff's services were more
valuable than his were, because the plaintiff was
much lighter.
This was the plaintiff's case.
For the defence Edward Rawson Clark was
called, and said---I am the defendant. I reside in
Thistle-grove, Brompton, I have a racing esta-
blishment at Edgeford, in Staffordshire. The plain-
tiff was engaged by me as a stable boy at ss. 4 week.
I was at the Liverpool Spring Races in 1856. Priest
ss-rs. s.asoauesa me Lo tae ptaintitt. I eta not ask
the plaintiff what his weight was. I never spoke
to him at Liverpool in my life. I did not engage
him as a jockey. I gave him five guineas on one
occasion. That wan for winning the race at Lich-
field with South-Western. It is customary in esta-
blishments like mine to engage boys as stable boys.
If they turn cut well we put them upon a horse for
the purpose of giving them an insight to the busi-
ness. The plaintiff left my service in the middle
of 1857. Ho never applied to me for any money
when lie left me, and I never heard anything of
this claim until the beginning of this year. I was
summoned by Priest at the Brompton County
Court. I could not appear to the summons on ac-
count of my mother's funeral. I subsequently took
out a summons against him for perjury. I did not
appear to it through a mistake on the part of my
attorney, and consequently that was dismissed.
In cress-examination the defendant again denied
that he had seen the plaintiff at the Liverpool
Spring Meeting, and also that he had engaged him
as a jockey. lie was only engaged as a stable boy.
He fed with the other stable boys, and was paid 53.
a week by the defend.int's trainer.
Burbridpe, the defendant's trainer, was then
called, and said—l went with time defendant in 1856,
mind continoc d with him until July or August, 1857.
There were about eight or nine stable boys at the
time at the establishment at Edgeford, and the
plaintiff was one of them. I paid him his wages.
I never heard that he was engaged at .C4O per
is are
num. I gava him £5 for winning the race at Lich-
field wimh South Western. A stable boy bound
to ride when his master puts him up.
The learned counsel having addressed the jury on
behalf of their respective clients,
The learned judge summed up, and the jury re-
turned a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount
claimed. ---
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Sittings at Nisi Prins in London.—(Before Mr.
Justice Williams and a Common Jury.)
BOLTON V. THE NORTH LONDON RAILWAY COMPANY—
THE KENTISH-TOWN ACCIDENT.
This was an action to recover damages for injuries
sustained in the accident which happened at the

MAY 01,

Kentish .town junction on the 2d Sept. last ; and the
company admitted their liability and paid £lOO into
couvt, so that the only question was whether this
amount was Lufficient to compensate the pldntiff.
Mr. Hawkins and Mr. H, James appeared for the
plaintiff ; and Mr, Boyill and Mr. J. Browne for the
defendants.

The plaintiff was a young woman, 20 years of
age, and she was the widow of G. H. Bolton, who
had been a stoker in the employ of the defendants,
and on Sept. 2 she went upon the excursion to Kew
and returned by the train which met with the acci-
dent. She was in the carriage next the engine, and
nothing happened until she heard the whistle, and
immediately afterwards felt the carriage barn over
and over. It went down the embankment, and she
received an injury upon the left side of the head and
was insensible for a few moments. The carriage
was broken to pieces, and she having scrambled out
of it with her infant in her arms was about to get
under a railway arch, as a place of safety, but find-
ing there were palings which prevented her doing
so, she turned back and then saw her husband stand-
ing by the wreck with his clothes on fire and call-
ing to her for assistance. In a short time he was
placed in a cab and was taken to the University
Hospital, where she remained with him for three
hours, when she went home to the east end of Lon-
don in a cab. At the hospital she felt pains in her
head, wrist, and foot. She, however, did not con-
sult any of the medical men there, she being more
anxious about her husband, who was so hurt
that he died a few days afterwards. The next
evening, however, she consulted a medical man.
Previously to the accident she was in very good
health, but since then the pains in the left side of
her head and body had increased down to the pre-
sent time. She experienced dimness of sight, mostly
of the loft eye, and since the accident she had fainted
away once, and had often felt very faint. She had
been able to earn nothing since the accident, but
the company allowed her £1 a week until January,
when the action was commenced, and they had paid
her in addition £B, and had also paid the expenses
connected with her husband's funeral. Her hus-
band had earned 28s. a week.

Medical men were called, who detailed the symp-
toms, and expressed their opinion that there was
disease of the brain, which it was feared might re-
sult in paralysis.

On the ()flier hand the doctors called for the com-
pany thought that the plaintiff was not so mu ch
hurt, and they expressed their opinion that there
was no permanent injury.
In the course of the case it was stated that ano-
ther action had been commenced on account of the
injuries sustained by the child, and that a third
action had been, or was about to be brought, for
damages for the loss of the husband; and this led
to a suggestion which resulted in an arrangement,
that upon the payment of 400 guineas beyond the
sum paid into court, proceedings in all the actions
should cease.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
PARSONS V. MARSH-JUDGMENT.

In this case, which was reported some time ago,
the will propounded had been found under very sin-
gular ciroutnst ances. The evidence was very con-
tradictory, end the court, in giving judgment this
morning, remarked on the singularity of the cir-
cumstance that a person so evidently illiterate as
the one that had written the will should have
made use of such formal and appropriate
language. Besides, the signature of the tes-
tator, Solomon Brake Strong, was mis-spelt. On
the whole, he (the learned judge) was by no means
satisfied that the instrument had been written and
signed by the deceased, or that the signatures of the
alleged attesting witnesses (both of whom were
also dead) were really theirs. He must, therefore,
pronounce against the will, and condemn the par-
ties propounding it in the costs.