The Sun.
London, England, 1862-11-14 00:00:00

BURCH V. BURCH, AND KEYES AND HAMBROW.

This was a petition presented by the husband, praying
for a divorce on the ground of adultery.
The parties resided near Taunton, Burch carrying on
the business of a miller, the co-respondent.Keyes being a
police-constable.
Witnesses proved the adultery in both cases.
A decree nisi was pronounced with costs against Keyes.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Kerr.)
EXCURSIONISTS AND THEIR TROUBLES.--SINGULAR CASE
AND IMPORTANT DECISION.—IVIMEY V ROBINSON.
This was an action to recover £3 damages sustained under
the following circumstances, of great importance to persons
proceeding upon excursions :
Plaintiff said—ln August last I saw an advertisement in
a newspaper of an excursion to Portsmouth for ss. by water,
and as I wanted to go, I with two friends took tickets per
the Leda steamboat. We left London -bridge safely, and
went on our journey until we arrived at Southend, when
the engine broke down and we could not proceed any fur-
ther—(laughter)—being detained at Southend two days—
(renewed laughter)—when we were taken back to London-
bridge, and never reached Portsmouth at all. I claim now
£3 damages for this detention, as it was defendant's duty
to have satisfied himself of the seaworthiness of the steamer
before letting it start.
Mr. Cattarns, of Mark-lane, for defendant, urged that
the steamer was surveyed by the proper Government official
at regular intervals, and that the break down was an
accident.
Plaintiff—Oh, she was an old vessel.
Mr. Cattarns—She runs now. Defendant is only the
agent, and plaintiff might have found out the principal
before suing.
His Honour—The principal is not disclosed on the receipt
nor in the advertisement of the excursion. If the defendant
pays he can sue the owner.
Mr. Cattarns—Most likely defendant would have paid,
but he considered plaintiff made an exorbitant demand.
Plaintiff could have gone to Portsmouth by rail for 58.
His Honour—Oh I but he required a sea trip. (Laughter.)
Mr. Cattarns—Then surely he cannot complain, as he
had two extra days at sea without charge. (This most in-
genious argument was received with great laughter.)
His Honour—Where did the advertisement appear p
Plaintiff—ln Bradshaw.
Mr. Cattarns then argued that, as defendant was only
the agent, he was not liable, but
His Honour ruled that he had not disclosed his principal,
and that plaintiff was not bound to run about to find out
who was the owner. Defendant had his remedy against
the owner, but as plaintiff had been detained at Southend
for two days, and as he was not taken to Portsmouth at all,
there was a clear breach of contract, and so plaintiff would
have a verdict with costs.

PEARS V. THE UNITED KINGDOM ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH

COMPANY (LIMITED).

This was an action to recover for work and labour done
in repairing the roof of a house damaged by putting up the
company's poles.

Mr. Beard appeared for the plaintiff, who stated that he
had been employed by a Mr. Blanchard (who was in the
service of the company at the time, but had since left) to do

;he work.

A gentleman who represented the company said that
Blanchard had no authority to employ plaintiff. Blancliard's
duty was to obtain the sanction of householders for the erec-
tion of the poles.

His honour thought that Blanchard had authority to
employ plaintiff, and the company must pay.
Defendants' agent said he should certainly move for a
new trial.
Verdict for plaintiff, with costs.