The Sun.
London, England, 1862-06-27 00:00:00

SEAR V. SEAR.

This was a petition presented by -the husband, praying
for a divorce on the ground of the adultery of his wife.
The petitioner was chief engineer on board her Majesty's
ship Magicienne, and the marriage took place at St. Pancras
Church in 18.51, and in 1856 petitioner went to sea, leaving
his wife in comfortable circumstances at Devonport. "Very
shortly after he had gone away, Mrs. Sear sold off the fur-
niture and went to London, and eventually she became
very irregular in her conduct, on some occasions remaining
out all night. Eventually she gave birth to a child, the
husband hax ing been upwards of 12 months at sea.
The jiiry found that Mary Scar had been guilty of adul-
tery with divers persons, whose names are unknown.
The Court made a decree nisi.

OLD SHERIFF'S COURT.
(Before. Mr. Kerr and a Jury.)
DEFENDING A BREACH OP PROMISE OF MARRIAGE CASE

FOR 108.-APPS V. ANDREWS.
This was an action to recover an attorney's bill, the costs
of which had been incurred on behalf of defendant's son,
who had been sued by one Ellen Stokes in a breach of pro-
mise of marriage case.
•Mr. Barnard appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Gibbons
for defend ant.
The only point in the case was whether the defendant,
who is a farmer at Farnham, had made himself liable for
his son ; and while plaintiff swore that he had done so, de..
fendant said that when his son was served with the writ at
the suit of Ellen Stokes, he (defendant) called upon plain-
tiff and inquired what had better be done. Plaintiff re-
plied, " Unless you enter an appeararice judgment will go
by default, and they will get their expenses, which may be
serious." Defendant asked how much that would cost,
and upon being informed 10s., paid that suns, telling plain.
tiff that he should have no more to do with it. It further
appeared that the son was over age, but Mr. Barnard urged
that it was perfectly clear the father had authorised the
son to employ plaintiff,

His Honour—lt is not perfectly clear, Mr. Barnard, and
I shall be obliged to tell the jury so.
His Honour was about to sum up, when the jury said,
" We are all agreed."

His Honour—Agreed upon what ?
Jury—We find for the defendant.
Verdict for defendant.

POLICE-THIS DAY.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

STEALING THE PRODUCE OF A CHEQUE—THE FIRST
OFFENCE.—A lad of 17, named Charles Smith, in the em-
ploy of Mr. Isaac Gee, chemist, of 35, Haymarket,,,,wa.s
charged with stealing the sum of £5, the money of his mas-
ter, and also with being in possession of a handsome riding
whip, believed to be stolen.
Mr. Gee said that on Wednesday morning he gave the
boy, who had been in his employ some time, a cheque on
the London and Westminster Bank and told him to get it
cashed and to bring him back the money. The prisoner
iled to do so, and he saw no more of him until he was in
the custody of the po'ice. On inquiry at the bank ho
found the prisoner had received the money.
Levi Libby, G 182, said he was called by Mr. Thomp-
son, pawnbroker, of Little Bath-strew, Clerkenwell, the
previous day, the prisoner having offered the whip pro-
duced for sale. At first the prisoner said he had found the
whip, but afterwards said it belonged to his father, who
was a jockey. On searching the prisoner he found £3 13s.
on him in gold and silver. The prisoner's father was a
working jeweller, and the prisoner had a brother who he
heard was a bad character. The father said he was ob-
liged to turn the prisoner cut of the house.
Mr. Knox asked Mr. Gee whether ho had any character
with him, and he replied in the negative.
Mr. Knox—And yet you entrusted him with a cheque to

get cashed.
Mr. Gee said he had entrusted the boy with money be-
fore.
The prisoner said he found the whip on Hampton race.
course.
Mr. Knox said he supposed the wretched boy had robbed
his master to go to Hampton races. It was a puzzle with
him to know what to do with such a boy.
Mr. Gee said he believed it was the prisoner's first
offence ; and, as his father had turned him out, he hoped
his worship would be lenient with him, the more so, as he
Olr. Gee) had heard it was all thrcu,;ll the prisoner's
father.

Mr. Knox said all he could do was to give the prisoner a
short punishment; but if the prisoner went to the House
of Oorrection amongst all the thieves, he would have his
future character ruined, and there would be a conviction
for felony standing in his teeth for tho rest of his life. He
would remand the boy for a week to the House of Deten-
tion, and in tho meantime would consider what could be
done.