The Sun.
London, England, 1862-02-15 00:00:00

RICHARDSON V. RICHARDSON AND DEACON.

This was a petition presented by Capt. Itiohard; on, of
the 11th Foot, praying for a decree of divorce on the ground
of adultery committed by his wife with the co-respondent.
The respondent and co-respondent pleaded denial of the
adultery, condonation, and misconduct of the petitioner.
On the case being called on none of the counsel engaged
on either side were in attendance.
The Judge said the case must be struck out.
Mr. Gilding—The solicitor for the petitioner, said his
witnesses were in attendance, and it Would be a most serious
expense for his client if that course was adopted. Many
parties had had to come from Plymouth.
The Judge—What do you wish me to do.
Mr. Gilding—To allow the case to stand over for some
time, my lord.
The Judge—Certainly not. Do you want me to retire
and wait for an hour or two. Such a proceeding would
bring the court into public contempt. I will allow you 10
minutes to get your counsel in attendance.
Mr. Gilding—Thank you, m y lord, for the indulgence.
At the expiration of the time the Judge asked if the
eounsel had arrived, and on being informed they had not,
he called the petitioner forward, and told him he had better
conduct his own case.

The petitioner, Captain Richardson, then came forward
and taking the brief in his hand, called the following
witnesses : _ _

Lieutenant Crauford said he was presant at the marriage
of Captain Richardson with the respondent. in 1852. He
saw the parties living together in Chatham after that time.
Ho accompanied a lady named Caldwell from Plymouth to
London, and at No. 64, Piccadilly, he saw a lady whom he
believed to be Mrs. Richardson.

By the Judge—He had seen nothing of the parties since
the marriage until he saw the lady in Piccadilly, a period
of nearly nine years.

Mrs. Amelia Caldwell said she resided at Mill-bay Grove,
Plymouth. She recollected a Major and Mrs. Deacon
taking lodgings at her house on the 30th of October, 1860.
They lived there till March, 1861. She did not know either
of the parties before that. They occupied three rooms—a
drawingroom, bedroom, and nursery. There was one child
about 10 or 12 months old. They occupied the same bed-
room. She had since seen the lady and gentleman at a
house in Piccadilly. Lieutenant Crauford was with her
when she saw them. She also at the same time saw Major
Deacon.

Lieutenant Crauford recalled—Said he saw a gentleman
at Piccadilly, but it was not Captain Richardson.
Mrs. Caroline Phelps said she resided at Portsea-place,
Connaught• square. She knew the petitioner. He, with
his wife, resided in her house in 1860. They had previously
resided with her in 1859. When they left her house in
1860 Mrs Richardson said she was going to her mamma's at
Windsor. She did riot know where Captain Richardson
was going. She heard Mrs. Richardson say she had an
aversion to go to Aldershot, as the huts were so small,
While they were living in her house Captain Richardson
always treated his wif3 with great kindness. She accom-
panied Lieutenant Crauford to a house in Piccadilly, and
there she saw Mrs. Richardson.
Mr. Gilding, a solicitor, said he attended at the house in
Piccadilly last Friday, the 7th, in company with Mrs.
Caldwell. Having received some information he obtained
admission to the house, and went upstairs, where he saw
Major Deacon and Mrs. Richardson at breakfast. He then
told the gentleman, Major Deacon, that he had taken the
bold step of recognising him at once in his room rather than
employing a detective policeman. Major Deacon said he
felt he had taken the wisest course, and he fully acquitted
him of all intention to act rudely.

The Judge said he was unwilling to pronounce a rule
nisi at that time, as the other side might be in the same
position that the petitioners had been at the beginning of
the case All parties concerned ought to have been present
that morning, but next motion day the counsel for the pe.,
titioner might move fcr a decree nisi.
Counsel not being in attendance in the other cases set
down for hearing, the court rose at 20 minutes to one.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
WORKMEN IN MINES-IMPORTANT DECISION-WARE V.

FULLER.

This was an action to r ecover the salary of the residen
agent at the Pelyn Wood Mine, defendant being an adven-
turer.

Mr. Whitehurst appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Chas.
Robertson for the defendant. _ _ _

The first witness was the son of the defendant, who having
been subpoenaed, was called upon to produce the books of
the mine.

Mr. Robertson said that the witness was merely a lad in
the office, and had no control over the books.
A question arose as to defendant being the purser of the
mine, and Mr. Robertson said defendant was sued as a
co-adventurer and not as a purser. Ho as solicitor
had no power to produce the books, which might be called
for in the proper manner.
Mr. Whitehurst (to witness)—Does not your father hold
SOO shares in this mine P
Mr. Robertson—I object to that, as it is entered in a
book.
The Court overruled the objection, and said the fact might
be proved as a prima facie matter without the books.
The cost sheets were then called for, and Mr. Rcbertson
declined to produce them.
Witness—Plaintiff is captain in the mine. I do not
know his salary. I have produced cost sheets in previous
actions, but I do not produce them now. The salary was
stated in them.
The Court warmly declared that if the witness did not
give evidence fairly it should know how to deal with him.
Mr. Robertson saw nothing to warrant such a remark.
Mr. Whitehurst—l dare say the witness will recollect in
a minute.
Witness—l do not remember what my father swore as to
the amount of the salary.
The Court—Why not subpoena the defendant ?
Mr. Whitehurst—l apprehend I have done sufficient.
The Court (to witness)—Do you know what captains in
mines usually are allowed in such mines in Cornwall ?
Mr. Robertson objected to such a question.
Witness—The salary might be Os. to £8 Bs. a month.
I have never remitted Roger Ware (plaintiff) any money.
Cross examined—Ware sued one Cook, and recovered in
that action.
The Court—That was for August. This is for June.
Mr. Robertson callednthret Act,atte whichntio prevented of tphreeConutretd a plaintiff44thtothe
dßiNc,thiloinngohf theiscaSuhseeriofff s'cu
action. Plaintiff sued inNov. one adven-
turer, and had no power to sue another for a previous debt.
Plaintiff had already sued one adventurer, and had no right
aware it existed.
obbies sertesaounquOofteadctintoh: when he was perfectly well
definition of "politic" in
s Dictionary, but the Court held that it did not
atWopl‘pedilbjyrysltidenreit was a question whether this was the same cause
of f ction. At the end of ever
action accrued, and he was entity goraledtoontha
againstfresh cause
any
ad-
venturer for each month. Therefore plaintiff would have
a verdict.
Mr. Robßobertsongave notice of appeal, and said the Court
which soft impeachment
wthaes
Craethrhetrdfeaniceetrs this morning,