The Sun.
London, England, 1862-05-16 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, EVENING, MAY 10, 180

as little delay and inconvenience as possible the ves-
sels which may be detained according to the tenor
of the first article of this treaty, there shall be
established, as soon as may be practicable, three
mixed courts of justice, formed by an equll number
of individuals of the two nations named for this
purpose by their respective Governments. These

courts shall reside, one at Sierra Leone, one at the
Cape of Good Hope, and one at New York. But
each of the two high contracting parties reserves
to itself the right of changing, at its pleasure, the
place of residence of the court or courts held within
its own territories. These courts shall judge the
causes submitted to them according to the provi-
sions of the present treaty, and according to the re-
gulations and instructions which are annexed to
the present treaty, and which are considered an
I integral part thereof, and there shall be no appeal
from their decision.
ART. V, In case the commanding officer of any
of the ships of the service of either country duly
commissioned, according to the provisions of the
first article of this treaty, shall deviate from the

stipulations or from the instructions annexed to it,
any one wronged thereby shall be entitled to repara-
tion. In such case the Government to which such

commander or officer may belong binds itself to
cause inquiry to be made into the subject of the
complaint, and to inflict upon the said officer a
punishment proportionate to any wilful transgres-
sion which he may be proved to have committed.
ART. VI. It is hereby further mutually agreed
that every American or British merchant vessel
which shall be searched by virtue of the present
treaty maylawfully be detained, and sent or brought
before the mixed courts of justice established in
pursuance of the provision thereof, if in her equip-
ment there shall be found any of the things herein-
after mentioned, namely,-
1. Hatches or bulkheads in the hold or on deck
in greater Lumber than are necessary for vessels
engaged in lawful trade_
2. Division of bulkheads in the hold or on deck
in greater number than are necessary for vessels
engaged in lawful trade.
3. Spar planks fitted for laying down a second
or slave deck.
4. Shackles, bolts, or handcuffs.
5. A larger quantity of water in casks or in tanks
than is requisite for the consumption of the crew
of the vessel as a merchant vessel.
6. An extraordinary number of water casks or
other vessels for holding liquid, unless the master
shall produce a certificate from the custom-house at
the place from which he cleared outward, stating
that a sufficient security had been given by the
owners of such vessel that such extra quantity of
casks, or of other vessels, should be used only to
hold palm oil, or for other purposes of lawful com-
merce.

7. A greater number of mess-tubs or kids than
requisite for the use of the crew of the vessel as a
merchant vessel.
8. A boiler or other cooking apparatus of an un-

usual size, and larger or capable of being made
larger than requisite for the use of the crew of the
vessel as a merchant vessel, or more than one boiler
or other cooking apparatus of the ordinary size.
9. An extraordinary quantity of rice of the flour
of Brazil, of manioc or cassada, commonly called
farina, of maize, or of Indian corn, or of auy other
article of food whatever, beyond the probable wants
of the crew, unless such rice, &c., or other article
of food be entered on the manifest as part of the
cargo for trade.

10. A quantity of mats or matting greater than
is necessary for the use of the crew of the vessel, as
a merchant vessel, unless such be entered on the
manifest as part of the cargo for trade. If it be
proved that any one or more of the articles above
specified is, or are, on board, or have been on board
during the voyage on which the vessel was cap-
tured, that fact shall be considered as prima facie
evidence that the vessel was employed in the Afri-
can slave trade, and she shall in consequence be con-
demned, and declared lawful prize, unless the mas-
ter or owners shall furnish clear and incontrovertible
evidence, proving, to the satisfaction of the mixed
court of justice, that at the time of her detention or
capture the vessel was employed in a lawful under-
taking, and that such of the different articles above
specified as were found on board at the time of de-
tention, or as may have been embarked during the
voyage on which she was engaged when captured,
were indispensable for the lawful object of her
voyage.

ART. VII. If any one of the articles specified in
the preceding article as grounds for condemnation
should be found on board a merchant vessel, or
should be proved to have been on board during the
voyage on which she was captured, no compensation
for losses, damages, or expenses consequent upon
the detention of such vessel shall in any case be

granted either to the master, the owner, or any
other person interested in the equipment or in the
lading, even though she should not be condemned
by the mixed court of justice.
ART. VIII. It is agreed by the high contracting
parties, that in all cases in which a vessel shall be
detained under this treaty by their respective
cruisers as having been engaged in the African
slave trade, or as having been fitted out for the
purposes thereof, and shall consequently be ad-
judged and condemned by one of the mixed courts

of justice to be established as aforesaid, the said
vessel shall immediately after its condemnation be
broken up entirely, and shall be sold in separate
parts after having been so broken up, unless either
of the two Governments should wish to purchase
her for the use of its navy, at a price to be fixed by
a competent person to be chosen for that purpose by
the mixed court of justice, in which case the Go-
vernment whose cruiser shall have detained the con-
demned vessel shall have the first option of pur-
chase.

ART. I.X. The captain, master, pilot, and crew of
any vessel condemned by the mixed courts of jus-
tice shall be punished according to the laws of the
country to which such vessel belongs, as shall also
the owner or owners, and the persons interested in
her equipment or cargo, unless they prove that they
had no participation with the enterprise.
For this purpose the two high contracting parties
agree that; in so far as it may not be attended with
grievous expense and inconvenience, the master and
crew of any vessel which may be condemned by a
sentence of one of the mixed courts of justice, as
well as any other persons found on board the vessel,
shall be sent and delivered up to the jurisdiction of
the nation under whose flag the condemned vessel
was sailing at the time of capture; and that the wit-
nesses and proofs necessary to establish the guilt of
such master, crew, or other persons shall also be
sent with them. The same course shall be pursued
with regard to subjects or citizens of either con-
tracting party who may be found by a cruiser of
the other on board a vessel of any third power, or on
board a vessel sailing without flag or papers which
may be condemned by any competent court for
having engaged in the African slave trade.
ART. X. The negroes who are found on board of
a vessel condemned by the mixed courts of justice,
in conformity with the stipulations of this treaty,
shall be placed at the disposal of the Government
whose cruiser has made the capture. They shall be
immediately set at liberty, and shall remain free—
the Government to whom they have been delivered
guaranteeing their liberty.
ART. XI. The acts or instruments annexed to
this treaty, and what it is mutually agreed shall
form an integral part thereof, are as follows
(a) Instructions for the ships of the navies of both
nations destined to prevent the African slave trade.
(b) Regulations for the mixed courts of justice.

ART. XII. The present treaty shall be ratified,
and the ratifications thereof chall hi, exchanged in
London in six months from this date, or sooner
if possible. It shall continue and remain in full
force for the term of 10 years from the day of ex-
change of the ratification, and further until the
end of one year after either of the contracting par-
ties shall have given notice to the other of its in-
tention to terminate the same ; each of the con-
tracting parties reserving to itself the right of giv. -
ing such notice to the other at the end of the said
term of 10 years. And it is hereby agreed between
on the
been received by either from the
d expiration of one year after such
noticeth e h t
shaat, 1 l
have
other pty, this treaty shall altogether cease and
etermi!irne.
In witnue Whereof the respective Plcnipoten-

tiaries have signed the present treaty, and have
thereunto affixed the seal of their arms.

Done at Washington on the 7th day of Apil, in
the year of our Lcrd 1862.
WAI. H. SEWARD.
LYONS.

department. The old system of leaving prisoners
for months untried still to some extent prevails,
and, unless roused to action by association with some
energetic men from the north, it is not very clear
how au improvement will be brought about by
judges brought up under and accustomed to the old
system.

There are no regular gaol deliveries in this coun-
try, and the length of the period of detention before
a prisoner is brought to trial is a matter of the ut-
most uncertainty. To some extent this uncertainty
is inevitable, from the system adopted, which is this
—when a person is committed to prison on any accu-
sation, a " Sugo d'lnstruction" is appointed by the
Procuratore-General to instruct or collect evidence
in the case. This evidence is all documentary, and
the collecting it may occupy, according to circum-
stances, two, three, or in fact almost any number of
months. When, finally, this evidence is completed
and sent back to the Procuratore 'Generale, he, if he
considers it sufficient, refers to the judges to fix a
time for the public trial ; and no limit would appear
to be assignsd to the time within which the judges
must fix the trial.

As an instance of the delay which can occur, I
mention the case of Count de Cristen. This gentle.
man was arrested on the 7th September, 1861. I
am informed that the instruction was completed and
sent back to the Procuratore- Generale in December,
and though I have reason to believe my French
colleague has made not less than ten or twelve
strenuous applications to urge on De Cristen's trial,
up to this time no day has been fixed, and he is
still in prison untried.
Clearly, some radical change is wanted when a
case of this kind can occur. lam informed, indeed,
that an entire change in the judicial procedure
will commence with the month of May ; if so, it
appears all the more to be regretted that no North-
ern Italian judges have been nominated, who, being
cognisant of the system to be introduced, might ma-
terially assist in bringing it into working order.—
I have, &c.,

(Signed) EDw. WALTER BONHAM.

L 4TV INIELLIGENCE.—May 15.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

Sittings at Nisi Prins after Term at Westminster,
before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn and Common
Juries.

PLEDGE V. FIELD-SLANDER.

This was an action for slander. The defendant
pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Hawkins, C/ C., and Mr. Byron were counsel
for the plaintiff; and Mr. Addison for defendant.
The plaintiff is an auctioneer at Sandgate, and
defendant is a builder of the same place. Both are
members of the local board of health, and the slan-
der arose out of certain local matters. Plaintiff, in
1856, was appointed clerk, surveyor, and collector
of rates to the board, which offices he held till 1857,
and after that he had been an ordinary member of
the board. In Oct., 1861, there was a meetingof the
board, when a squabble took place between plain-
tiff and Dr. Gidley, another member of the board, re-
lative to the latter erecting some stables, which the
plaintiff called livery stables, and asserted that the
doctor was a livery stable keeper. The defendant,
it appeared, interfered, and addressing Dr. Gidley,
said, "Never mind, you are not a thief, as he (plain-
tiff) is. You are not a robber." Application was
afterwards made to defendant to apologise and re-
tract, but he declined, and on a subsequent occasion
the defendant said to plaintiff's attorney at the Folke-
stone Railway station, " I am not going to apolo-
gise to a man that you and I know to be a thief,
and has stolen money belonging to the board, for
which he ought to have been punished long ago."
The defendant had brought the action for the vin-
dication of his character, and not for the purpose of
obtaining vindictive damages.
The plaintiff was called and deposed to the above
facts. He added that shortly after he resigned his
offices a summons was taken out by the defendant,
charging the plaintiff with not having rendered
proper accounts to the local board of health.

The defendant's counsel interposed and said it
was a mistake. The defendant never took out a
summons against the plaintiff.
The original summons and information in the
defendant's name was put in and read.
Plaintiff further deposed that he appeared before
the magistrates at Hythe, in obedience to the sum-
mons. It was dismissed with costs. Defendant
had frequently called him a thief since 1857.
_ _

Sevor-al witnesses were called on behalf of the
plaintiff. They said that party politics ran high at
Sandgate, especially with regard to the water
question.
The defendant called no witnesses.

Mr. Addison, for the defendant, asked why, if
this action had been brought for the vindication of
character only, it had not been tried in Kent instead
of in Middlesex. The words complained of were
mere vituperation and idle abuse—that they did
not refer to the plaintiff, but to the question before
the board. relative to water to be supplied free of
expence to the Wesleyan Independent chapel, and
the water to be used in the erection of Dr. Gidley's
stables. He admitted the word " thief " was used,
but not the words " as he is," meaning the plaintiff.
He denied that the defendant meant to impute dis-
honesty to the plaintiff in reference to money mat-
ters connected with the local board of health.
The Lord Chief Justice said there could not be a
doubt that the words complained of had been spoken,
and if they were not intended to convey the imputa-
tion alleged by the plaintff, the defendant ought to
have gono into the witness-box and have explained
the matter.

Tt.e jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—
damages, £2OO.

PRIEST V. WARREN.

This was also an action for slander. The declara-
tion stated that the plaintiff was an unmarried
man, and that the defendant said of the plaintiff
" He is a married man, and that woman (meaning
a woman of immoral character) is his wife, and
those two women (also bad characters) are his
daughters, and he is living in adultery with them."
The declaration also stated that he visited a house
of ill fame with them. The defendant pleaded not
guilty.
Mr. Littler was counsel for the plaintiff; Mr.
Hawkins, Q.C., Mr. Robinson, and Mr. Francis
were counsel for the defendant.

The plaintiff is a boot tree maker, residing in the
Walworth-road, and the defendant is a butcher, also
residing in the same neighbourhood. The plaintiff
claimed special damages.
The first witness called was Wm. Gillett, a dyer.
He refused to be sworn unless his two days' expenses
were paid. The plaintiff's solicitor tendered him
55., which he indignantly declined to take, saying
that dock labourers were paid more a day than that.
The solicitor then was told that ho had a right to
ss. a day. The 10s. were then given to him, which
he pocketed with much satisfaction, and was then
sworn. He deposed that he never heat(' the defen-
ant say anything of the plaintiff. (Laughter.)
Mr. Hawkins (the defendant's counsel)—Mind, no
money returned. (Laughter.)
The Lord Chief Justice—Have you put your best
witness forward, Mr. Littler?

Mr. Littler—l am afraid so, my lord, and that the
plaintiff will have to be nonsuited. (Laughter.)
James Jennings, another witness, was called, and
he gave a similar answer to the learned counsel's
questions.
W. Bush,collector to the Fishmongers' Company,
to whom the plaintiff is a tenant, deposed that on
coming out of the plaintiff's house one day he acci-
dentally met the defendant, who said to him, " Why
do you keep that man in the house with his
daughters ? they are not women of moral character."
The matter was investigated by a committee of the
Fishmongers' Company. Defendant said to witness
that he had received a lawyer's letter about it, and
he supposed it was with a view to extort money from
him. Defendant afterwards said the witness had
wrongly represented what he (defendant) had said
to him.

Mr. Hawkins submitted that the words sworn to
were not actionable. They were at variance with
the declaration.
The Lord Chief Justice said the words sworn to
were not actionable, and he could not amend the
declaration.
Mr. Littler'said this action was brought on Bush's
information, and tho other witnesses could have
given evidence in support of the plaintiff's case. The
only manner in which plaintiff could at all account
for the slander was that he had let part of his house
to a woman and her daughters, who gave satisfac-
tory references, but who turned out to be immoral
oharantora, and hn gnt rid of them.
The plaintiff was then nonsuited.
SECOND COURT.
Sittings at Nisi Prius—(Before Mr. Justice Wight-
man and a Common Jury,)
THOMAS V. RIM.

The plaintiff in this case was a printer in Tavis-
tock-street, Covent-garden, and the proprietor of the
Theatrical Observer, and tne defendant was a
gentleman popularly known as Capt. Morton Price.
The action was brought to recover £lOl, balance
of an account for printing for the defendant a book
called " A Trip for a Wager to America," and for
printing other things in relation to the dramatic
entertainments the defendant is in the habit of giv-
ing in different parts of the country.
The defence was that the amount claimed was an
excesaivo charge, and the defendant called oeyeral

printers, who stated that they would have done the
work for £7O.

The jury ultimately returned a verdict for the
plaintiff for the amount claimed.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

Sittings at Nisi Prius in Middlesex.—(Before Mr,
Justice Byles and a Common Jury.)

STEVENSON v. TOMKINS.-FALSE IMPRISONMENT.

The plaintiff in this case was a young woman, 18
years old, and at the time in question she was living
with her father in lodgings in the house of the de-
fendant, a milkman, in Orford-road, Marlborough-
street, Chelsea. She was given into ctstody by the
defendant on a charge of stealing a gold locket and
about 15s. in copper from out of his room, but hav-
ing been taken before a magistrate she was, after a
remand, discharged, and she now sued to recover
damages for false imprisonment.
The defendant pleaded a special plea, which
alleged that among the halfpence stolen there was
a halfpenny which was battered in a peculiar man-
ner ; that the door of the bedroom where the locket
and the halfpence were kept was usually locked,
but that some days before the charge was made the
defendant's wife showed the locket to the plaintiff,
who admired it; and the defendant's wife then went
downstairs, leaving the door unlocked, and that the
plaintiff might have then committed the theft ; that
after the theft the defendant received information
that the battered halfpenny had been in the pos-
session of the plaintiff's brother, a boy 8 years old ;
that the boy, on being questioned, stated that he
had picked it up in his father's room, and that the
plaintiff told him she had dropped it ' • that the plain-
tiff on being questioned said that her brother had
told her that he had seen a strange woman go up
stairs, though the brother, when asked, denied this,
but said that the plaintiff had told him to say so.
When the brother made these statements in the pre-
sence of the plaintiff she said he was a liar. Fur-
ther, that the policeman told the defendant that he
believed the plaintiff had been in the service of Mr.
Drury, and that after she left some articles, includ-
ing a gold brooch, was missed. In addition the plea
alleged that the plaintiff at the time of the theft
was in such poor circumstances that the father,
mother, brother, and herself all lived in one room.

Mr. M'lntyre appeared for the plaintiff, and `Zr,
Hannen for the defendant.

A good deal of evidence on both aides was given in
reference principally to the plea of justification.
Mr. Justice Byles directed the jury that it was not
now imputed to the plaintiff that she had actually
stolen the property, the mat question being whether
the defendant had reasonable ground for suspecting
her.

The jury were locked up to consider their verdict,
and after they had been absent about a couple of
hours they sent a note to his lordship to say that
they had not agreed, and never should ; but as the
plaintiff's counsel would not consent to their being
discharged, they remained in their room. In tha
course of about an hour after they came into court
and gave a verdict for the plaintiff—damages, 40s.

THE CONSOLS INSURANCE COMPANY V. NEWALL-

ACTION FOR DEPOSIT MONEY UTON

This was an action to recover £125 for deposit
upon 500 shares in the plaintiffs' company ; and the
defendant pleaded, among other things, that he
had been induced to take the shares by fraud.
_ _

Mr. Sergeant Shee and Mr. Merewether ap-
peared for the plaintiffs; and Mr. Giffard for the
defendant.

Evidence was given that the defendant, a pat-
tern designer at Leek, in Staffordshire, had exe-
cuied the deed of the company in the presence of
Mr. Hart and Mr. Rayner, two agents of the com-
pany, and had taken 500 shares in his own name
and 500 in the name of his wife. The deed pro-
vided that a deposit of ss. a share should be paid.
It was denied that any misrepresentation had been
made, or improper inducement held out to the de-
fendant to take the shares or sign the deed, and the
evidence of the defendant was generally denied by
anticipation.
Mr. John Nowall, the defendant, was then called,
and said that he had been at one time a designer
of patterns for buttons, bat his present employ-
ment was that of " weigher." His first introduc-
tion to Mr. Hart was in this way : he was sitting
after his work by the fire with his wife, when Mr.
Hart, a travelling agent, and also Mr. Rayner, the
local agent of the company, knocked at the door
and asked him to take shares. He said he would
have nothing to do with it, and that he had no
money. They asked to be allowed to come into
the house and show him the names of some persons
in the town, and having done this, he thought the
scheme was " well laid out." They said the com-
pany would pay 20 per cent., the same as the
Westminster Bank, and that it would pay a bonus
in a short time, and they " puffed it off' in what
they said. They showed him a book (the deed)
with names in it, and he signed it. Mr. Rayner
said if witness put his name in the book they could
get other names because witness was known as a
steady hardworking man. Witness said he had no
money, but a person owed him £237 10s. ; and they
replied that only ss. a share was required, and he
could make up the difference on the 1,000 shares. Wit-
ness said that if ho got the money he would take
the shares, but if he did not get the money, he
would not take the shares. They said—he should
think twenty times—that he need not mind sign-
ing his name, for it would not bind him. He did
not know he was signing a deed, and if he had
known it, ho would sooner have had his finger cut
off than signed. He had never got the money
which he lent to a relative, and he feared he never
should.

Mr. Justice Byles drew attention to the deed,
and to the fact that the place where the witness
signed was headed, " Schedules of signatures to the
foregoing deed," the first three words only being
upon the page which bore the names.
Witness continued—The word " deed," was never
mentioned, and he never said that he delivered it
as his deed. It was a " list of shareholders " he
was asked to look at. When the allotment was
brought by Mr. Rayner witness said he had not got
his money, and he should not take the shares ; but
Mr. Rayner said he must take them. He recollected
that " lords" and "esquires," and other high-sound-
ing names were mentioned to him as directors, but
be could not recollect whether that of Peter Morri-
son was one of them.

Cross-examined—His position at the mill was
one of trust, or he should not have remained there
23 years. He was a self-taught man, having been
at work since he was eight years old, and never
having been at school. He had learnt to write, and
had walked seven miles every Sunday for a time to
learn. He had never seen the prospectus of the
company before he signed, but he was told that half
the money was to be invested in Consols. He re-
collected executing a deed at the time of the rail-
way mania, when he was " juggled" out of some
money-1:50. He had bad shares in the South-
Eastern Railway, and he signed a paper when
he sold them. He had had three shares
in the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire
line. He did not remember having had
any other shares. When he was asked to take
the Consols shares, he was toll that it was a great
favour to let him have them, and that they had
come to do him good.
To the Judge—Neither the title page of the deed
nor any part of the body of the deed was shown to
him when he signed.
Mr. Hart was recalled, and said that he showed
the defendant the title page, and also the first and
second pages of the body of the deed. When he had
signed witness said, "'That is your seal, you must
put your finger upon it," and the defendant " deli-
vered" the deed in the usual way.
His lordship put several questions to the jury,
and they in answer said that they found for the
defendant upon all the issues.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Sittings at Nisi Prius at Westminster.—(Before
Mr. Baron Martin and Common Juries.)
&MINDERS V. BASTABLE-ACCIDENT.
This was an action to recover compensation in
damages for bodily injuries sustained by the plain-
tiff through the alleged negligence of the defendant's
servant in driving a fire-engine.
The defendant pleaded not guilty, and that the
fire-engine and horses were not under the care and
direction of his servant.
Mr. Sergeant Petersdorff and Mr. Bridges were
counsel for the plaintiff; and Mr. M. Chambers and
Mr. T. Salter for the defendant.

The plaintiff, who was 68 years old, was formerly
a hotel keeper, and the owner of a coach and horses
at Honiton, but having become reduced in circum-
stances, had taken to cab driving, and earned abo
ut
30s. 30s. by that occupation. On the evening d
hoof was
thenat
31st of January last, about ten o'clock,
driving through Finsbury-square,
in the act of turning into Cbisweln while
l-street
ran
ta
fire-engine, from the Watling-street s
i station,njuries upon
into his cab, the pole inflicting
his thigh and the lower part of his abdomen. The
where he remained ror 16
plaintiff was taken to St. Baaarythoulie.rniirt:st!-,-:,v:iln,
s e althoughnt e
d theo b
be
had partially
anda
bn unablerecovered, ht eo
followwas repre-
sented phr
lame
The defendant, who carried on husi-
is
occupation.
ness in Star-yard, Bor,ough,anhda had contracted
appearedeontrac d to
inwehich was from
the superintendent of the London
d d b
pro Uee y
Shaw,
ewlhat he was also to furnish a compe-
tent
tschuai eprpeptt laedßyri r
Captain
iv gs horsesa
of tlloerctohnetreanctg,
r f
whose negligence or default he was
to be wholly liable.
Captain Shaw said that an engineer generally
accompanied the engine, and took command of it,
but he did not superintend the driving.
The house surgeon of the hospital who attended
the plaintiff was absent in the country, and the
plaintiff WAS unable to pay the expope of his

coming to London. Air, Lawrence, the senior
surgeon, had been subpoenaed and paid the usual
guinea fee, but he asked 10 guineas for his atten-
dance, which the plaintiff also could nut afford.
A medical man, who had seen the plaintiff on the
previous day, deposed to the injuries which he had
received, and said it was uncertain whether his
lameness would be permanent or not.
Only one witness was called for the defence—the
engineer —who said the accident arose from the
plaintiff di iving his cab suddenly across the front
of the engine as it was proceeding at the rate of
about seven..miles an hour to a fire at Ball's-pond.
Mr. M. Chambers having addressed the jury for
the defence,

The learned Judge summed up, and
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—
damages £25.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
JEWELL V. JEWELL.

Dr. Spinks appeared for the petitioner. She wtta
orignally a Miss Levy or Lavy (for her family had.
latterly adopted the latter name); and she was
married to the respondent Joel Jewell, an outfitter
in Shadwell, at the New Synagogue, Great St.
Helen's, on the 10th Sept., 1851. There had been
no children. She stated that about three months
after her marriage her husband began to treat her
with cruelty. lie had several times since beaten
her, and he hid also been guilty of a gross miscon-
duct towards her which had seriously affected her
health. She had not cohabited with him since 1834 ;
but she did not leave the house till last year ; and
she finally quitted it because he had attempted to
use violence towards her. While they lived in the
same house she never went near him when she
could help it—he smelt so dreadfully. She would.
not eat with him, or after him, nor would the ser-
vants. Mrs. Jewell's evidence was largely confirmed.
by several witnesses.
Mr. Giffard contended that the residence of the
petitioner in the same house with respondent
amounted to condonation.
Sir C Cresswell said the case was certainly a very
curious one in some of its aspects. His present im-
pression was that the allegations of the petitioner
were made out ; but he would reserve his decision
fir further consideration.
lIALFEY V. HALFEY.—ANOTHER GRETNA•GREEN

MARRIAGE,

Dr. Spinks appeared for the Petitioner. The mar-
riage took place at Gretna-green on the 21st of
February, 1849, the petitioner being at that time a
servant at the Scarsbrick Arms, Southport, and the
respondent the son of a boarding-house keeper
in the same town. They never lived together,
but they saw each other from time to time ; and
in the January of 1850 the petitioner bore her hus-
band a daughter. He had since gone to Australia,
where he was now living with a woman, to whom
he appeared to be married. Mrs. Halfey, there-
fore, sued for a dissolution, on the ground of adul-
tery and desertion.
The court mode a decree nisi, with costs.
SMITH T. SMITH AND PIGDEN.
Mr. Hedgsou appeared for the petitioner, who
was a working gardener. The parties were married
at Clapham, in the year 1844, and they cohabited
6111857, during which time they had three chil-
dren. The respondent then eloped with the co..
respondent, with whom she was now living, and
by whom she had had two children. Pigden was
a blacksmith at Garret, in Surrey.
The court made a decree nisi, with costs.
TERRY V. TERRY.—SHOCKING CASE.
The petitioner, James Terry, a hair-dresser, of
Pleasant-row, Holloway, sought a dissolution of his
marriage, on account of his wife's adultery with her
own brother, Thomas Richardson. Richardson,
who was a soldier, had since committed suicide.
Dr. Swabey appeared for the petitioner.
The marriage took place in 1842, and had been;
followed by the birth of two children. Latterly
the conduct of the respondent had become very dis-
solute; and on the 27th of February. 1860, she left
her home with her brother (who had been staying
with her), and representing themselves to be matt
and wife, they obtained lodgings at a coffee-house
in Bishopsgate-street, where they passed two nights
together. They then both took poison, and Richard-
son died. The respondent, however, recovered.
She was afterwards convicted at the Old Bailey of
having been accessory to her brother's suicide, and
she had suffered a term of imprisonment for the
offence.

A decree nisi was granted.
BURBAGE V. BURBAGE.
This was a petition by a wife for adultery and
desertion. The respondent was a cabinet-maker,
and he married the petitioner in July, 1840. In
Feb., 1859, he went to America with a barmaid at
a tavern at Clerkenwell, with whom he had formed
a criminal connexion. The petitioner has since sup-
ported herself as a governess.
Mr. Pinder appeared for the petitioner.
Decree ntsi.