The Sun.
London, England, 1862-02-01 00:00:00

JUDGMENT- ARCHER V. JAMES.

This was an action by the plaintiff, a journeyman stock-
ing.maker in Nottingham, to recover from the defendant,
balance of wages due to him. The- defendant pleaded that
the balance of the plaintiff's wages was paid in supplying
him with machines for working heels of stockings, light,
fire, room-rent, and fines, amounting to 3s. 9d. per week.
The plaintiff replied that such payment of wages was not
lawful, and contrary to the Truck Act, Ist and 2d William
4, sec. 23, that his wages should be paid in money.
The Court of Queen's Bench decided in favour of the
defendant.

Mr. Justice Renting and other judges were of opinion
that the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench should
be reversed on the ground that such payment was not a
legal payment of a mechanic or artificer's wages.
Baron Bramwell and other Judges considered that such
payment was lawful and did not come under the Truck
Act.

The Court being equally divided the, decision of the
Court of Que9n's Bench was affirmed.
Costs reserved for further consideration,

COURT OF DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge-Ordinary.)
BORROUGUS V. BORROUGAS.
This was a petition presented by the wife for the restitu-
tion of conjugal rights. The respondent pleaded adultery
on the part of the wife, and also that there was a suit pend-
ing for the dissolution of marriage, in which Silcock was
co -respondent.
The mother of the petitioner (Mrs. Coleman) proved the
marriage of the parties, which took place on the Ist of
January, 1859. The young lady, whose name was Cole-
man, was at that time 21, and Mr. Borroughs 23. They
lived in the mother's house for about nine months, and
then took a house at Statham, where they resided till Dec.,
1860 when cohabitation ceased,
In cross-examination the lady said—l knew Mr. Silcocks
as a gentleman living at Stalham. Did not know that Mr.
Borroughs remonstrated with his wife about Silcock's visits.
He was on most friendly terms with him. My daughter
told me the circumstances that led to her leaving her hus-
band's house. She said it was in consequence of her hus-
band finding Mr. Silcocks concealed in the drawing-room.
She did not tell me she refused to sleep with her husband
that night. She said that Mr. Silcocks brought a letter to
her that I had written, and thinking she might like to see it
he brought it to her. He took the letter to the back-door,
and my daughter was in the kitchen. When she saw
Mr. Silcock there she said that she must not be seen
speaking to him as her husband had dismissed him the
house. She then went into the dining-room, and he fol-
lowed her and gave her the letter.
While he was speaking
hern husband came in he took
there was was somebody in the house. It
to her her husband came in at the door,
a,
wasnanpdt hlheeat great
cl
faq-himselfnupdaa lr
rs
et
enl
and
duhe
said
dWI
dSt ihhxheei in the evening. Mr. Burroughs
went into the drawing-room and there he found Mr. Sil-
cock. When he found him he asked what business he had
there. Some angry words took place, and Mr. Burroughs
threatened to kick him out. Mr. Silcock said he would walk
out. He afterwards said it would be a bad job, and then asked
her whether she would not have some tea. Mrs. Borroughs
told her husband if he suspected her while she was taking
tea it would choke her. He then went out to see a Mr.
Trews in the village, and remained out till one o'clock,
when be returned home and went to bed in the spare room.
Ho got up early on the next morning, and she had never
seen her husband till very lately,

Mrs. Borroughs said—l am the petitioner in this cause
I married in January, 1859. After that we resided at
my mother's till October in the same year. We then went
to live at Statham. We lived happily there excepting some
disagreements we used to have about Mr. Borroughs being
out so late. I had £1,009 when I married. My husband
had nothing but what he had from his father and what he
obtained by his profession as a solicitor. His practice
lawyer in Yarmouth. I
was very small. He used to go out to different per-
sons in Statham, and sometimes to the publichouse. I
d not
rtelling leave
my
me husband's t
o
er own accord. I got a
have been living with my mother ever since. I have not seen
my husband until I saw him in London. Ho has made
did
tt e l
no proposal to me.
Cross-examined—We had no dispute about Mr. Silcock,
only I told him if he did not like his coming to the house he
had better tell him so. He had written to him telling him
not to come. He-did not appear to me to be jealous of his
coming. Ho never said more than he thought he had
better not come, as people made remarks about it. It was
at the end of the summer this took place. He was friendly
with Mr. Silcock. He had written more titan once to Mr.
Silcock about his visits, but my husband had made it up
with him. He never asked me anything about Mr.
Silcock's visits. I think the first letter was written
from Statham, when rity mother had gone to Yarmouth for
a short time. My brother Walter was then staying‘ with
me, and he told Mr,-Borroughs he thought he had better
write to Silcock. Mr. Silcock used to come very
often to our house. He used to come to our
house while Mr. Borroughs was in his office- He has
left Silcock often in the room with mo. I don't think that
Mr. Borroughs wrote more than two letters altogether.
When the second letter was written, my husband said
remarks were being made about Mr. Silcock's visits. My
husband never said the neighbours talked about me walking
out with Silcock. I never did so. Mr. Silcock never kissed
me, except once, and then it was my hand under the
mistletoe. I had then known him but a very short time.
I saw Mr. Silcock in Yarmouth. I was there on a visit to
some ladies named Crick. Mr. Borrough was in Yar-
mouth that day I received the invitation from Miss Crick.
I remained there one night. We all went out to tea.
I returned home to Mrs. Crick's with the youngest Miss
Crick about half-past ten. I did not change my dress. I
only put on little Miss Crick's hat, and we went out for a
short turn in front if the house. 'We met Mr. Silcock before
we returned home; I think it must have been about half-
past six. We met Mr. Silcock coming off the pier. He
went with us to Miss Crick's, but stayed a little time. We
all went oat together, but Mr. Silcock left us. I saw him
again about nine o'clock. I was standing at the gate with
little Emma, It was then I put on the hat and cloak. We
only walked up and down in front of the house till Miss
Crick came home about half-past 10, Silcock and myself
entered the house by the back door. The servant let us in.
Miss Crick, and a young gentleman, named Brown, who
had seen her home, were at the front door. I did not wish
Mr. Brown to see Mr. Silcock. Mr. Silcock and myself
did not kiss each other, and give the maid half-a-crown.
I did give the maid half-a-crown when I left the next day.
I will swear the only kiss that was ever given was that I
have spoken to as having taken place under the mistletoe
My husband, when he found Silcock in the drawing-room,
never asked me for what he had come. I threw my hus-
band's guard ring,and other things from my jewel case. I was
angry because he did not ask me to explainMr.Silcock's visit.
I don't think I threw a locket, containing Mr, Borroughs'
likeness out of it, because I have it now. I never said " I
will not sleep with you," I went to sleep in a different
room to that usually used in consequence of what had taken
place. The door remained opened, so he could have entered
if he chose. The servant slept with me. I did not see my
husband after this.

Ite-examined—Mr. Burraughs gave me his sanction to
go. Ho knew I was going to Miss Crick. He went to
his father's. I was not friendly with him. The only
reason for which I took the hat was that my own,
which had a feather in it, was rather damp.
Mr. Silcock had not been in the house more than
two or three minutes before my husband came in. I first
made Mr. Silcock's acquaintance at Christmas time when
we first went to Stalham. My husband introduced mo to
him.

By the Judge Ordinary—The servant told me that Mr.
Borroughs had threatened to kick Mr. Silcock out of the

house.

This was the caso for tho petitioner.

THIS DAY'S SHIPPING.

31.—Wind
oad RicoSMfo't Falmouth.
blowing—W
LONDON, Feb. I.—Wind this day at nom
moJerato breezo and cloudy weather. noon—Westerly;
re
dr l.y._;
FALMOUTH, Jan. 31.—Wind S.W.
ArPriovne:ilueiTirri,eJha, nf.ro3ml..Arrived—Siam,
from Mauritius ; in coming to an anchor fouled the Ark
(brig), and carried away bowsprit.
PLYMOUTH, Jan. 31.—Wind S.W.. Arrived—Alfrcdo,
from Havannah.

SWANSEA, Jan. 31.—Wind S.W.—Arrived—Ocean
King, and San Fernando, from Caldera ; Jeune Armando,
from Bilboa.

BELFAST LOUGH, Jan. 30.—Arrived—Crusader, from
Liverpool for Calcutta.
(BY ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH.
SOUTHAMPTON, Saturday Morning.
Arrived—Baroness, from Odessa; John and Robert, from
London; Clio, from Britonferry ; South-tropton, steamer,
from Havre.

Sailed—Argyll, steamer, for Carentan ; Teutonic,
steamer, for Now York.

(Br SUBMARINE AND M-
DAGENAELT, IsCatTuErLdEaGylli‘Ajorrnll.i)no.
Anchored—Harrier Queen, from Buenos Ayres for
London; Quiver, from London for St. Michael's.
'The Avon, from Colombo for London, in coming into
the Downs last night, got into collision with a brig
an-
chor; both vessels have received damage, but the particu-
lars are unknown.

FATAL ACCIDENT AT PERTH RAILWAY STATION.
—Yesterday (Tuesday) afternoon, at a little after 3 o'clock,
Mr. Mount, timbor merchant, Perth, was unfortunately
killed at the goods station of the general terminus there.
It would appear that he had accompanied a friend on some
matter of business, and while there, unknown to any of the
officials, incautiously leant against one of a number of wag-
by Which he was thrown
dgoonwsnwahnidchki\lvleed o were Using
Bsphoute_ntel,dinburgh Courant.