The Sun.
London, England, 1862-11-19 00:00:00

SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY' EVENING, NOVEMBER 19, 1862.

BRITISH POSSESSIONS

LAW-THIS DAY.

Railways

Paid

Closing
Price.
_
63 65
1031 1041

Busineam done

lAtlantic St Lawrence
Bom.,Baroda&.Cent Ind
Gu. 5 per cent........
Do. New ...
Buffalo and Laae Huron
Do. Preference
Bufralo,Brantot Godricl,
16 p. fat. bda. Aug. 1, 187.,
Do, do. July 1, 187:-
Do. do. June 1. 1S

104 i I i

DIVORCE COURT.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
RUTTER V. DI/ITER-HULBERT AND CIMIST.

This was a petition presented by the husband, praying
for the dissolution of his marriage on the ground of adultery
committed by his wife.
Dr. Spinks having stated the case, called
Mr. James Delmar, who said—l knew the petitioner and
Mrs. Rutter from marriage—they appeared to live happily
together.
Mr:Davis said—I know the petitioner and his wife. Some
time after their:, separation I fancied I saw the respondent

Cleutta,t S. Eastn. (L
Cape Town & Dock Seri]
Eastn. Bengal gu. 5 p.
East Indian, gu. 5 p. e.
''"Do. do. G Ext.....
Do. do. H do. ..
,Grand Trunk of Cana&
Do. 6 per cent. Pref..
Do. 2d Pref. 6 per et..
Do. 6 per ct. Debentr.
Do. 7 per cent. 1862 ..
Do. do. 1867..

MI 8}
107 f 8 7} 8}

Do. do. 1872 : .
Gt.lndia.Penin.gua.sp.c
Do. New gua. 5 p. o
Do. January, 1862
Gt. South.of India (Lim
guaranteed 5 per cent.
Gt. W. of Canada Sharer
Do. New . .. . .
Do. 6 p.c. '73 with't opt.
Do.
o. 54 p. o. do. '77 do
D 1878
Indian Branch Limited
Madras guar., 5 p. o.
Do. 41 p. o. Extension

at a window of one of the houses on the Lower Marine
Parade, Margate. I communicated the circumstance to Mr.
Rutter, and then he, in company with the landlord and
myself, went to the house about one o'clock in the morning
for the purpose of ascertaining whether she was living
there with a gentleman. We went up to the bedroom
door, and having entered the apartment, Mrs. Rutter
was found in bed alone. Her husband asked her
if it was true that she was living with a gentleman. She
indignantly denied the accusation, and demanded that we
should leave the place. Before we went to Mrs. Rutter's
lodgings I was smoking a cigar, when a gentleman came up
to me and asked me to give him a light. This person I
believe was the co-respondent Hulbert. After this we re-
turned to town, and from other circumstances I was in-
duced to call at Mr. Hulbert's residence in London. I had
an interview with him, and after telling him to be careful
with his answers; I asked him why I had been watched at
Margate ? He said he was driving Mrs. Rutter in a pony-
chaise in Margate, when passing me as I was walking
Mrs. Rutter said, pointing to me, ' There goes the
biggest enemy I have in the world." I then
asked him the nature of his intimacy with Mrs. Rutter,
when he admitted the nature of his connection with Mrs.
Rutter, at the same time saying, " Don't make the thing
public, or I shall be kicked out of house and home, but I
am so fond of the woman that I don't care a —for that."
Hulbert after this admitted having seen me at Margate,
and being asked directly whether he had been guilty of
criminal intercourse with Mrs. Rutter, he evaded the
question, neither answering nor denying it.
John Ridnell-4 reside at Lower Marine-terrace, Mar-
gate. Ia June,! 1859, I: recollect the last witness going to
to Mrs. Butter's bedroom. That lady's name was Rutter.
The lodgings were engaged for two ladies and two gentle-
men—Mrs. Rutter, Mrs. Powell. and the two Mr. Hulberts.
After the visit of Mr. Rutter, Mrs. Rutter left Margate by
the first train with Mr. Hulbert, but they both returned the
same night. During the whole time they were there Mr.
Hulbert appeared to pay the greatest attention to Mrs.
Rutter. When I knew the petitioner was coming in that
night I told Mrs. Rutter of the circumstance, and she re-
plied he could come, as there was nothing between Mr.
Hulbert and herself. I saw Hulbert the following year,
and told him Mrs. Rutter was at Margate with another
gentleman. He said that was very unkind of her after the
presents he had made her. I afterwards saw Hulbert and
her on horseback.

Mr. Best—Where do you rebid° ? Witness—At 33, St.
George's-road, Eccleston- square.
Mr. Best—Are you the brother of the Earl of Strafford ?
Yes, I am.
Mr. Best—Did you receive goods from Mr. Davis in 1841
to the amount of £4B 10s ? Witness —I received some few
goods, but I cannot tell the amount now.

De. 43 - do—
Melb.Corn. R p. o. Bnds
Melb. & Hobson's Bay.
Do. 7 p. c. Mortg. Bds.
Newßrunswiok Canda

r Claes A Capital Share
Do. do. B Capital d 0...
N.Rl.C'da6 pc Ist pi bde
Scinde
Do. Delhi
Do. do • 51.4 z
•
Do. Punjaub
Do. Do. r4g
Do. Indue.St. Flo.)

Mr. Best—Did you ever pay that amount? Witness-1
most firmly, and honestly, and conscientiously believe that
in August, 1841, I paid Mr. Davis £lOO and upwards.
Mr. Best—Had that £lOO and upwards anything on earth
to do with this bill now claimed for ? Witness—l believe
it had.

Mr. Best—Did you ever borrow money from Mr. Davis
Witness—Yes.

Mr. Beat—Had not that £lOO reference to borrowed
money ? _

Mr: Byng—lt might have had partly, but not solely.
Mr. Davies said he could prove by his books that there
had been no payment of the £4Blos. now claimed.
The Judge said this was immaterial.
Mr. Davis—Mr. Byng swears that he has paid the
£4B 10s.
Mr. Byng—l don't say that all.

Mr. Davis said he had his cashbook and ledger, and he
could prove the entries. All he wanted to prove was the
justness of his claim. If Mr. Byng was determined to
cheat him under the statute of limitations, he supposed he
must do so.

Mr. Best—l am afraid, Mr. Davis, you will never gel
your money.

Mr. Davis—l don't suppose I shall ; but I can pay the
expenses, and can go out of this court a much more grati-
fied man than Mr. Byng can possibly be.
The Judge said ho had no discretion in the matter. The
statute of limitations had been sot up, and as the plea was
not disputed, there must be a verdict for the defendant.

A verdict for the defendant was accordingly entered.

POLICE-THIS DAY.

Mr. Ed ward Delmar—l know Ur. Hulbert, but not inti-
mately. He has never spoken to me about Mrs. Rutter.
I've heard him mention her nanie, but I can't remember
anything that passed in connection with it. Hulbert told
me ho had a citation served upon him by Rutter. I knew
by that he had to appear as a co•-respondent in a divorce
suit.

WESTMINSTER.

ROBBERY OP THE HON. MR. DENHAN,
Ford was charged with stealing divers sums of money in-

trusted to her by her mistress.
The Hon. Mrs. Denman said—Yesterday I received a
note from my butcher, stating that he had not received any
money since July last. I was much surprised, as I had
given the prisoner the money weekly to pay the accounts
as they came in. She was my cook, and had ,been in our
service about ten months, and she regularly had the money
to pay the bills up to last Friday. I spoke to the prisoner
about the butcher's bill. She acknlwledged she had had
the money, and wanted to go to the butcher's, and I told
her she might. I sent privately to the police, who also
went to the butcher's shop.
Mr. Arnold—What is the amount of money the prisoner
has had ?

Mr. Charles Hulbert was then called upon his subpoena,
but did not answer.

Mrs. Williams, of York-place, Ramsgate, proved a lady
and gentleman, named Mr. and Mrs. Guest, taking apart-
ments in her house as an and wife in July last. She
afterwards saw them in the presence of a Mr. Mansfield.
Mr. Mansfield proved that the lady spokes to by the last
witness was Mrs. Rutter.

Mr. Knox, the petitioner's solicitors, said he had had an
interview with Mrs. Rutter, during which she told him
that she had been living some time with Mr. Guest, who
was the second son of the late Sir John Guest.
The Court postponed giving judgment until to-morrow
morning.

Mrs. Denman—£l6 ls. lid.
Mr. Arnold—ls the butcher here ?

The police—He is.

Henry Thomas Feltham, of 106, Marlborough-road,
Chelsea, said—l have served the Hon. Mr. Denman for
the last four years. Mrs. Denman's account is
only paid up to July 26. I never until last night received
any money from the prisoner, or anybody else on that ac-
count. Yesterday morning, not feeling satisfied respecting
Mrs. Denman's account, I wrote to her stating the fact, and
I heard that it had been delivered' to her as I had requested,
because Mrs. Denman was heard inquiring of her why she
had not paid the butcher. A policeman shortly afterwards
arrived at my shop and told me the prisoner was coming,
and she directly came. She said, " I have come about the
book," and was sorry I had written to her mistress, as she
might lose her situation. I informed her that I never men-
tioned any name in my letter, but merely stated that I had
not had my money: She then said she had the misfortune
on Saturday to lose her purse, but now had some money
about her with which she would pay part of the account,
and the remainder by instalments weekly. I told her I
could not do that. My young man might as well be ex-
pected to pay my debts. 1 drew her attention to the cir-
camstance that the last receipt stamp in the
book had been removed from a week which had
been paid to a week further on, which had not.
She said she wanted the previous week's meat put down,
and then wanted me to take £4 Ws. I told her I would take
the money, but would not put it on the book, and gave her
a separate receipt ; and I told her I should keep the book
and send it to Mrs. Denman. The policeman came into
the parlour, and I gave him a copy of the receipt.
Peter Smelto, 163 B, said—l went to the butcher's and
placed myself in a position to hear what occurred when the
prisoner was there. I went back and told Mrs. Denman it
was her servant and not the butcher who was the thief. I
afterwards took prisoner into custody.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Holroyd.)
IN RE DUFOUR.

This was a meeting for last examination and discharge.
The bankrupt is a schoolmaster, and was up to the time of
the bankruptcy a master of one of the public schools.
Mr. E. Reed and Mr. Poole appeared for the plaintiff.
The solicitor to the assignees opposed, and Mr. Registrar
Hazlitt said the case must be adjourned, as Mr. Commis-
sioner Fonblanque was unable to preside:
Mr. Reed complained of these frequent adjournments.
The matter had been adjourned from time to time since
February in consequence of the absence of different commis•
sioners. He was quite willing to abide by the decision of
the registrar.
Mr. Registrar Hazlitt said he would endeavour to obtain
a hearing before Mr. Commissioner Holroyd.
His Honour said that as the case was urgent he would
hear the case, and he ultimately granted the order of dis •
charge.

(Before Mr. Registrar Hazlit.)
IN RE E. Iv, GODWIN,-PETITION DISMISSED.

This bankrupt was a lodging-house keeper at the west
end.

Mr. E. Reed opposed on the ground that the debts ex-
ceeded £BOO, and that the £1 stamp was insufficient.
Mr. Lucas submitted that that could be amended by
affixing the additional stamp.
Mr. Reed insisted that the petition ought to be dismissed.
The Learned Registrar said that it appeared to be a pity
that all the trouble should be taken, where the difference
of the debt entered and the debt due was small, and there
had evidently been an error. He had seen Mr. Commis-
sioner Holroyd, who thought the additional stamp might
be affixed. _ _

Mr. Arnold asked the prisoner what she had to say.
The prisoner said the amount was not quite accurate, but
added, " I am guilty, your worship."
Mr. Arnold—You are remanded for a week.

Mr. Reed then asked the Bankrupt whether she had
not gone by the name of Manners, and contracted the debts
under that name, and she admitted that was so, but she
had not mentioned them in the petition.
The Registrar—There is an end to the petition.
Mr. Lewis asked to amend.
The Registrar—No. That omission cannot be amended.
Petition dismissed.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Kerr.)

SINGULAR CASE OP MASTER AND SERVANT-IMPORTANT

DECISION-CROOK V. BAYLEY.
This was an action to recover £2 16s. for two weeks
wages, plaintiff alleging that he had been wrongfully dis•
missed.

Mr. Buchanan (who appeared for the defendant)—When
your honour hears this case you will say it is the most
glaring action ever brought.
Plaintiff said that he had been in defendant's service at
weekly wages. His duty was to receive money, and he re-
ceived a cheque of £l6 2s. from a Mr. Tomlinson. Having
endorsed the cheque with defendant's name, he proceeded
to the bank and obtained cash, which he kept for three
weeks. He did not know what to do with it, and he re-
ceived a letter from defendant telling him of a summary
dismissal.

Mr. Buchanan—Had you any authority to sign your
master's name ?

Plaintiff—lt was ray duty to collect money.
Mr. Buchanan—But as you were a weekly servant you
had no right to keep the money for three weeks.
His Honour—Certainly not. lam of opinion that de-
fendant was justified in discharging plaintiff, and I find for
defendant with 10s. costs.
DAMAGE CANNOT BE SET UP AGAINST F.REIGHT.-ALLEN

V. WYMARK.

This was an action to recover £2 lls. freight and charges
by a Dublin steamer. Mr. Buchanan called his client,
who deposed to paying the amount for defendant, who had
paid lls. into court, and pleaded a sot off as to £2.
His Honour—He sets off damage to the goods against
charges, and he cannot do that. It is the subject of a cross
action.
Verdict for plaintiff, and costs.

WESTMINSTER COUNTY COURT.
(Before F. Bayley, Esq., the Judge.)
DAVIS V. TILE IiON. W. F. BYNG.
The plaintiff in this case is Mr. Davis, :army tailor, of
Regent-street, and the defendant, the Hon. William Frede-
rick Byng. The action was brought to recover the sum of
£4B 10s. for clothes supplied to the defendant. Mr. Best,
of the Oxford Circuit, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr, F.
H. Lewis for the defence.
Mr. Best said that the plaintiff in this case was Mr.
Thos. Davis, the well-known army tailor of Regent street,
and the defendant was the Hon. W. F. Byng, a brother of
the Earl of Strafford. In the year 1841 the defendant was a
captain in the Dragoon .Guards, and; was quartered, he
believed, at Canterbury. Having been introduced to Mr.
Davis, he ordez ed one or two pairs of trousers, or, at all
events, some articles of clothing ; and he continued dealing
with Mr. Davis, same of his orders being contained in letters
which Mr. Byng wrote, and which would be produced. Not
only did he obtain:clothes for himself,tbut• he applied to Mr.
Davis to make clothes for other gentlemen, amongst others
a gentleman of the name of Clarke. On the sth of June,
1841, Mr. Byng wrote, by Mr. Clarke, to Mr. Davis a letter
in which he said, "Please make bearer a nice new coat."
Mr. F. H. Lewis, interposing, said he did not dispute
nuineness of the letters which Mr. Best had in his pos-
the g•-- • there would, therefore, be no occasion to read
session, an"

-vith much regret that his
"qnt under a plea
ho un-

them.
Mr. Best said he had hears ~ _
learned friend was going to shield his ei..,._
which he bad hoped not toli,ve heard of, especially a... _
derstood that Mr. Byng did not deny that he had had the
clothes. Mr. Byng
left England shortly after he had had
ought never to be had recoure to if
the.clothes of Mr. Davis, and he now instructed his counsel
to set up a plea which
it could possibly be avoided. If the learned counsel for the
defendant really intended to plead the statute of limita-
tions, of course he (Mr. Best) must bow to the decision of
the Court;
but he hoped his learned friend would set up

some more honourable defence, for to an honest man who
had incurred a just debt, and who had bad goods from a
tradesman, the plea of the statute of limitations ought to
be unknown. In such a case as this he pitied the man who
shielded himself under it.
Mr. Lewis said the plaintiff had had five or six days
notice of this plea, and as far as Mr. Byng was personally
concerned, they had had 10 years' notice, but Mr. Byng
had resisted the claim, believing that he had satisfied it long
ago. In ordinary cases he admitted with Mr. Best that a
gentlemen should not plead the statute of limitations, but
believing he had paid the claim, he held that it was Mr.
Byng's duty to set up the plea. The claim against Mr.
Byng was originally £112; but it was now reduced to
£48105., which would enable the court to form some opinion
of the nature of it. Mr. Byng was now present, and if Mr.
Best liked to ask him any questions he could do so.
Mr. Best said he should certainly avail himself of the
opportunity of doing so, and he would show that the debt
was never £ll2, but only £4B 10s. Many applications had
been made to Mr. Byng for payment, and the invariable
reply was, " You must go to my lawyer."
Mr. Byng was then sworn.
Mr. Best—l believe you are the Hon. 'William Frederick
Byng Witness—Yes, I am.