The Sun.
London, England, 1862-01-31 00:00:00

rim SUN,' LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JAN (JARY 31. 1862.

I spoke to lyr several simes during Wednesday
about- stopping with me, and I thought she I
would ; but on going home on Thursday I found I
her with her clothes packed up, and believing
she was going away with Collier, I lost all con•
trol of myself, I became mad, and struck her with
the poker." OE the same evening I went to
prisoner's lodging% On going into the house I
saw Mrs. Hamsliar's sister, and inquired what
had become of Collier, and to my great surprise
was told he was upstairs. I went upstairs to see
complainant, and found the man Collier concealed
under a bed in anadjoining room.
Mr. TanqueraT said the statement respecting
Collier's being under the bed could not be received
in evidence.

The prisoner said he should reserve his defence.
He was sorry for chat he had done.
Mr. Tanqueray fully committed the prisoner for
trial, and refused

L ATV IN TELLIGEN CE, Jan. 30.

MIL COURT.

Sittings in Banco.—(Before Mr. Justice Blackburn,

LEVT V. LEWIS-A NICE POINT.

In this case a rile had been obtained calling upon
the defendant to show cause why he should not pay
a certain sum of money pursuant to an award.
Mr. Keane shored cause against the rule for the
defendant. It apptared that the action was referred
to two arbitrators, and the learned counsel contended
that as the arbitrators had not signed the award in
the presence of each other, as they ought to have
done, such a signing would not do.
Mr. Huddlestoae, Q.C.' admitted that he could
not get over the technical objection raised by the
defendant. He suggested that the award should be
remitted back to ;he arbitrators.

Some discussion took place between the learned
judge and the learned counsel, and ultimately Mr.
Huddleston's suggestion was adopted, and it was
arranged that the award should be remitted to the
same arbitrators but the rule must be discharged.
His lordship disposed of several motions during
the day of a very technical nature.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before S;r (1. Cresswell.)
ituBINSON V. ROBINSON AND JACKSON.

This was a suit instituted by the husband for a
divorce, on the ground of his wife's adultery with
the co-respondent, The defendants appeared and
pleaded denial, condonation, and misconduct on the
part of the petitioner.
Mr. Sergeant Pigott and Dr. Spinks were coun-
sel for the petitioner; and Mr. M'lntyre appeared
for the co-respondent ; the respondent was not re-
presented by counsel.
Mr. Sergeant Pigott stated the case. The peti-
tioner, who is an assistant at a grocer's shop, was
married to the respondent in 1859, both being very
young at the time. After the marriage they went
to live at Florence-road, New-cross. The cohabita-
tion continued until the 9th of Feb., 1861, when
the respondent left her home. It appeared that
Jackson, who is engaged in business with his father
who is a printer and publisher at Woolwich, was
an acquaintance of the petitioner. Jackson took
lodgings at the petitioner's house, in Florence-road
where he remained ten weeks. He was in the habit
of being in the house during the absence of Robin-
son, whose business prevented his returning home
from an early hour in the morning until late in the
evening. The suspicions of Robinson were excited
and he communicated them to Jackson, who denied
that there was any ground for them. When he
came home on the 9th of February, he found that
his wife had gone out, having previously said to the
servant that it was not likely she would return. He
made inquiries which satisfied him as to his wife's
improper intercourse. After she left his house it
appeared that she and the co-respondent lived
together as man and wife in different parts of Lon-
don. It appeared, also, that the respondent ad-
mitted she had been unfaithful to her husband, his
father being present when this admission was made.
In support of this narrative the learned counsel
called a large number of witnesses, who deposed to
different acts of familiarity between Mrs. Robinson
and the co-respondent at the time when they were
alleged to have been living together and passed as
man and wife.

Mr. M'lntyre addressed the Court for the co
respondent, but adduced no evidence.
The Court considered that the petitioner was en.
titled to a decree nisi, with costs against the co•
respondent, and pronounced accordingly.