The Sun.
London, England, 1865-06-26 00:00:00

THAMES.

NOVEL APPLICATION FOR A PROTECTING ORDER.—Mrs.
Elizabeth Rhinish, a very respectable woman, dwelling at
No. 6, Lower Chapman-street, St. George-in-the-East,
applied to Mr. Paget under the Matrimonial Causes and
Divorce Act for an order to protect her goods, money, and
chattels from her husband.

The applicant stated that she was married to her second
husband on the 19th of March, 1850, and that two years
afterwards she separated from him by mutual consent, and
ho went abroad. He promised to send for her if ho was
successful in his pursuits. Ho did not send for her, and
she was left with four children to maintain. She had never
seen or heard of her husband since.

Mr. Paget—The law presumes that if a woman hears or
sees nothing of her husband for seven years that the
wife may conclude he is dead, and that the wife would not
be liable to punishment if she married again.

Mrs. Rhinish did not wish to enter into the matrimonial
compact a third time. (A laugh.) She was insured in tho
Sun Fire-office, and was informed that she could not re-
cover a farthing if she lost her goods by fire.
Mr. Paget—Who told you that ?
Mrs. Rhinish—The people at the Sun Fire-office.
Mr. Paget—Your husband did not desert you ?

Mrs. Ithinish—No, we separated by mutual consent.
Mr. Paget did not think he could grant a protecting
order in this case. lie was disposed to interfere for the ap-
plicant if ho could, but the law did not give him the power.
The applicant was not deserted by her husband. The law
was passed for the protection of property acquired by
married women by their own industry after they had been
deserted, without fault on their part, by their husbands.
In this case there was no desertion, but a separation by
mutual consent.

Mrs. Rhinish—l am told I could get nothing if a fire was
to break out on my premises.
Mr. Paget said that was a question for another court, on
which ho would give no opinion. He asked how long the
applicant had been insured, and in what office.
Mrs. Rhinish—For 25 years in the Sun office.
Mr. Paget did not think there was any practical risk in
the applicant continuing her insurance. The Sun was an
old established, respectable office, and dealt liberally with
insurers. He would advise Mrs. Rhinish to make an appli-
cation to the directors of the Sun Fire-office to insure as a
widow. She would be quite justified in such a step, and
then all risk would be avoided. He merely threw this out•
as a suggestion, and did not mean to say that the Sun
Fire-office would be compelled to insure the applicant's
property, but he believed it was most likely that would be
done.

Mrs. Rhinish thanked the magistrate and retired.

Quarrel in the French Chamber.

A Paris letter in the Trance Cezztrale gives the fol-
lowing account of an extra Parliamentary incident
which recently caused some little excitement among
the deputies—" After one of the late speeches deli-
vered by M. Jules Favre on the affairs of Mexico
several deputies were conversing with animation in
the lobby of the Legislative Body, and in the centre
of the group might be heard M. Henri Didier, de-
puty of the Ariege. 'An end should be put,' he
cried, ' to that canaille of an Opposition.' M. Beth-
mont, who was standing near, approached M. Didier
and said, You have just, sir, called the Opposition
canaille; I must observe that belonging to it I take
the word to myself, for you saw me very well and
spoke loud enough to bo heard by every one.' M.
Didier replied, You can take it as you please.'
Very well,' said M. Bethmont, have the
kindness to request two of your friends to come
to the sixth bureau, where they will find two of
mine.' A few minutes later M. Henon and the
Marquis de Saint-Hermine, seconds of M. Beth-
mont, were discussing the affair with two of their
colleagues designated by M. Didier. The friends
of this last did not hesitate to acknowledge that he
was in the wrong, and represented to him that his
conduct and language had been so contrary to par-
liamentary proprietyt that they could not take his
part. They persuaded him to withdraw the offen-
sive expression, adding that if he did not do so lie
would be disavowed by the entire majority. In
consequence, M. Didier presented himself in the
bureau where 111. Bethmont was awaiting the result
of the interview, and made an apology which M.
Bethmont and his colleagues of the Opposition con-
sidered as a sufficient reparation. The above de-
tails are strictly authentic."