The Sun.
London, England, 1862-11-13 00:00:00

COTTERILL V. COTTERILL.

This was a petition presented by the wife for dissolution
on the grcund of adultery and cruelty. The respondent
denied the allegations, and pled that the wife deserted him.

Mr. Charles Edward Butler proved the marriage, which
took place in Dec., 1853.
Mary Ann Cotterill, the petitioner, said—l was living in
Wells-street, Birmingham, in 1859. My husband treated
me very unkindly. He was very dissipated, and he used
often to strike me. On one occasion he threw a small
table at me, but his ill-usage was so frequent that I cannot
recollect any particular instance. I never used to speak to
him when he returned home at night. When we were

living in Hampton-street, after this, he attempted to take
the wedding-ring off my finger, giving no reason for so
doing. I resisted, of course, and he then struck me on the
head while. I was in bed. Elizabeth Jones, the servant,
came into the room, and he then became more quiet. We
used to have frequent struggles for the possession of the
wedding-ring, but he never succeeded in getting it. He
used to pull my hair down in a most violent manner, and
he used to throw the pillows at me.

The Judge Ordinary—But that d'd not hurt you?
Witness—He used to strike me as well. One night he
became so violent that I had to leave the bedroom. In
February, 1860, he ordered me to go to sleep in the attic,
but I refused to do so. In April of the same year, when
Mrs. Ryder was in the house, he quarrelled with me about
some ducks which were in a basket. I asked him not to put
theta on the table, but he took hold of nay hair, and taking
up a pair of scissors was about to cut my hair off, when
Mrs. Ryder took the scissors from him. This was on the
13th April, ant I left him on the 16th, and then went to live
with my mother. She was stopping with us some time be-
fore this. My husband on one occasion said he would kill
her, and took up the poker to do so. I attempted to prevent
him getting into her apartment, when he
pulled me round
the room by my hair. I saw my husband early in the morn-
ing of the day I left him. I did not speak to him.
Cross-examined—Between the 13th and 16th of April we
slept together, but by husband never took his meals at
home. My mother came to live in our house immediately
after our marriage. She continued to do so until six weeks
before the separation. She used, at times, to be very un-
friendly with my husband.
Elizabeth Johns said the conduct of Mr. Cotterill towards
his wife was violent and brutish. She frequently had to go
to her assistance, when she generally found Mr. Cotterill
holding her by tilt: hair and striking her.
Mrs. Ryder corroborated the evidence of the petitioner
with respect to the attempt of the respondent to cut Mrs.
Cotterill's hair.
Francis Arthur said he had seen the respondent take
women to certain houses in Chapel-street, Birmingham,
which he had pointed out to a person named Alexander.
Stamford Alexander, superintendent of police at Bir-
mingham, said the houses referred to by the last witness
were common brothels. The one in Chapel-street was pro-
fessedly a coffee-shop, but it ‘.as a place of resort for pro-
stitutes and thieves of the lowest description.

The counsel for the respondent, in addressing the Court,
said one circumstance was of great importance to the pre-
sent case, viz,, he had never made any mark on the peti-

ioner during his alleged ill-usage.

The Judge Ordinary said he thought that was assuming
'too much. A /Sere= might be struck violently on the head
without the effects of the blow being visible. There was no
rule of court that a man might beat his wife on the head
provided he did not raise a bump.
The learned counsel then went on to contend that the
three nights' cohabitation after the last act of ill usage con-
doned the charges brought against his client.
The Judge Ordinary said he was quite satisfied that a
case of very gross cruelty had been proved against the re-
spondent. He did not think there was the slightest act of
condonation on the part of the petitioner. He was also of
opinion that the charge of adultery had also been made out.
The issuing of the decree was suspended for a fortnight
to settle some questions relative to property.

SHERIFFS' QOURT.
(Before Mr. Kerr.)
LIABILITIES OF. DIRECTORS FOR PUBLIC COMPANIES.—
IMPORTANT DECISION.---MACKINTOSH V. REES (FAMILY
LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY.)
This was an action to recover for 3,000 policies, plaintiff
being a printer.
Plaintiff's clerk put in an order, headed "Family Life
Assurance Society," and signed by the chairman and de-
fendant, who was then one of the committee.
Mr. Buchanan urged for defendant that his client could
not be held liable, but that plaintiff must sue the secretary
or registered officer of the company.
His Honour remarked that defendant had signed the
order as a director of the Family Life Assurance Company,
but defendant handed up a book of rules, from which it
appeared that the society was entitled "The Family Sick
Fund Friendly Society," and in a second book there was a
third name. It appears to me that Mr. Mackintosh gave
credit to the directors, of the Family Life Assurance Society.
Mr. Buchanan—Perhaps plaintiff will tell us how the
policies were headed ?
Plaintiff's clerk—The Family Sick Fund Friendly
Society,
Defendant—lt is not a corporation, nor is it a joint-
stock affair. I have ceased to be a director, and if plaintiff
sues the registered officer he will be paid, as there is plenty
of money. Mr. Tidd Pratt says lam not liable.
His Honour-1 he plaintiff sues you as the director of
the Family Life Assurance Company, and in that form I
am of opinion that he is entitled to recover ; but the defen-
dant has his remedy against the society.
Verdict for the plaintiff, and costs.
SERIOUS ACCIDENT TO ONE OP THE BAILIFFS.
A very serious accident occurred last evening to Mr.
Overall, one ot the bailiffs of this court, who, whils pursu
ing, his avocations, slipped from the pavement, and being
unable to rise, was taken to St. 'Bartholomews Hospital,
where he now lies. Mr. Kerr proceeded there this morning
to swear the sufferer as to the service of certain processes,
and, upon inquiry, it was found that one of the small leg
bones was broken.

THE ALABAMA AGAIN.—The ship Granite State,
which arrived at Liverpool from New York yesterday, re-
ports that about the 23d ult., in lat. 40.30, long. 56, she
saw the Confederate steamer Alabama lying to, hull down,
to the westward. The Alabama bore down upon her, when
the Granite State, which was under single reefs, shook
them out and hoisted maintlpgallant. The weather was
very squally from N.W. Towards dark the Alabama took
in her topsails, and lay to under fere and aft sails. During
the chase she gained rapidly on the Granite State.
LORD SEYMOUR'S WILL—The Imperial Court
has just heard an appeal from a judgment of the Civil Tri-
bunal in an action brought by Miss Ellen Minchin against
the executors of the late Lord Seymour. It appeared from
the evidence produced on the first trial that after Lord
Seyinour's decease two wills were found among his papers,
one dated 17th December, 1855, in which he bequeathed to
Miss Minchin the sum of 25,000 fr., and another dated 22d
Juno, 1858, in which he bequeathed to her the sum of
600,000 fr., part of which was directed to be devoted to the
purchase of an inalienable life annuity ; the testator further
bequeathed to her an income of 10,000 fr. a year so long as
I 7 and in case of her death or she should remain unmarried
marriage the principal was to go to the London Lunatic
Asylum, All the testator's remaining property was to be
divided equally between the hospitals of Paris and London.
To this will was appended a codicil revoking all bequests'
made in wills, dated before the 22d June, 1858, but this
codicil, not being signed, was invalid according to the laws
1 the legacy of f
proceedings
eyrnour's executors to recover
of 25,0001 r male by the will of December, 1855,
against Lord
but the Civil Tribunal rejected the demand on the ground
that it was evident from the dispositions of the will of June,
1658, and the imperfect codicil annexed, that Lord Sey-
mour intended to annul the legacy
of 25,000 fr., but by the
same judgment the tribunal decreed that the executors were
to pay the 10,000 fr. annul
st
the testator's death. Agaiy
n ;
that it must be confirmed, with interest from the date of
Judgment Miss Minchin
now appealed, but the Court,after hearing counsel, declared