The Sun.
London, England, 1862-03-07 00:00:00

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.

(Before Sir C. Cresswell and a Common Jury.)

BT RROUGHS 'V. BURROUGHS AND SILCOCK.

This was a suit instituted by Mr. Thomas Proctor Bur-
roughs, a solicitor, practising at Stalham, in Lincolnshire,
for a:divorce on the ground of his wife's adultery with the
co-respondent, who is in business at Stalham with his
father, a wino and. spirit merchant. The petitioner also
claimed damages for the alleged injury he had sustained.
The respondent denied the charge, which she recriminated,
pleading adultery by the petitioner with three females, and
the co-respondent merely pleaded denial. It will be remem-
bered that there was a cross suit, in which the respondent
petitioned the Court for restitution of conjugal rights, and
the learned judge deferred judgment until the issues in the
present case were decided.
Mr. Macaulay, Q.C., this morning opened the case for
the co-respondent, Mr. Sileech, and said it was the first case
in which he had been engaged in which a claim had been
set up for damages in which not the slightest evidence had
been given to show the terms upon which the two parties
lived after marriage. He intended to call witnesses to re-
fute the evidence given by the Rev. Mr. White, and
although his learned friend had said Mrs. Burroughs could
not be acquitted of the charge made against her without
finding Mr. White guilty of perjury, he could not assent to
That doctrine, and he could not understand how that
gentleman could have received Mrs. Burroughs ink.
his house after she had conducted herself in the
manner he had described. Mr. White had also stated that
he saw the act of adultery committed on the 16th of March
between the hours of three and four; but he should call
witnesses to prove that at four o'clock on the afternoon o
the day 'mentioned, Mr. Silcock was at the house of an
elderly lady named Weeds, seven miles from Stalham, as
late as four o'clock in the afternoon, so that he could not
have returned to Stalham before five o'clock at the earliest ;
and, therefore, it must have been well dusk when the scene
Mr. White had spoken to as having seen at Mr. Burroughs'
house could have occurred —certainly it could not have bees
daylight as he had described.
The case will not conclude to-day.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Goulburn.)
IN RE FRANE.SON.

This bankrupt was a builder in Westminster. road, and
came up for his last examination and discharge. The bank-
rupt was in custody. The debts and liabilities amount to
about £B,OOO, but the assets are nearly or fully to that
amount.

Mr. Sorrell, Mark-lane, applied for the bankrupt's dis-
charge from eustods, and asked for an adjournment for six
weeks to enable the bankrupt to furnish accounts.
His Honour said that the examination had been once ad-
journed for that purpose.
Mr. Sorrell submitted that this ease ought to be taken as
though it were the first meeting, as the bankrupt had been
adjudicated to be so, against his urgent protest, on the first
visitation of the registrar under the new act. The bank-
rupt objected to the adjudication, inasmuch as he being a
,builder had entered into certain contracts, and the whole of
the property would become forfeited in the event of the ad-
judication in bankruptcy taking place. lie (Mr. Sorrell)
had on the last occasion obtained enlargement of the time
until this day for the bankrupt to surrender, to give him
an opportunity'. to sup6rilede, but on investigating
the affairs' he (Mr, Sorrell) found that the pay-
ment of the creditors would depend on the realisation of
mortgaged property, &c., before-mentioned ; and although
the bankrupt was anxious to do all he could for the benefit
of his creditors generally, and to prevent any particular
creditor from obtaining the advantage of the forfeiture, yet
as an act of justice to himself, seeing that he had been in
prison several months, he submitted to the adjudication.
His Honour, therefore, could see that this was not an ordi-
nary case of a bankrupt acting contumaciously.
His Honour granted the release, and adjourned the exa
mination till the 28th April.

SECONDARIES' COURT.
(Before Mr. Potter and a Jury.)
LEDIARD V. COLLIER-EXTRAORDINARY CASE OF THE

TIPPLING ACT.

This was an action brought in the Court of Common
Pleas to recover £2 7s. 6d. for champagne, brandy and gin..
and-water, and cigars.

Defendant pleaded never indebted except as to 155., the
Tippling Act, and payment of 15s. into court.

Mr. Robertson Griffiths appeared for plaintiff, and Mr.
Phi'brick for defendant.

Plaintiff said ho was formerly an innkeeper, of Colchester,
and defendant wag a traveller in the employment of a firm
which supplied plaintiff with spirits. Plaintiff owed this
firm an amount, and defendant called for payment. As
usual in such cases, defendant gave an order, and that was
for four bottles of champagne. It was very good and went
off with a "pop." (Laughter.) He went away without
paying, and subsequently, upon a future occasion, he par-
took of cigars and brandy and gin and water to the extent
of 19s. 6d. The champagne was charged at 7s. per bottle.
_ _

Cross-examined—l had been married about six montho
before this affair, I did not stand a bottle of champagne.
He did not tender me half-a-sovereign as payment of the
wine. He paid nothing towards the champagne. I never
said, " You've stood one, and I've stood one, and now I'll
stand another." Nor did 1 say, "If you pay half-a-sove-
reign that will be sufficient." He did not pay half-a-sove-
reign in my presence to my daughter, whu was barmaid.
I did not refuse to accept payment for the brandy and water
and cigars upon any occasion. Mr. Collier gave evidence
against me upon a trial, and so far as that trial is concerned
I have failed, and after that failure I brought this action.
I have never gone by the name of Leonard.
Mr. Philbrick—l believe there has been some diPputs
about a wife of yours—about a double wife ? (Laughter.)
Mr. Griffiths objected, and the question was not pressed.
Mr. Philbrick urged that this was a spiteful case brought
because defendant had ventured to give evidence against
the plaintiff. Such a case as this ought never to have been
brought in the superior court, and it was evidently taken to
the court above for the purpose of making cists out of de-
fendant. By the tippling act it was clear that plaintiff could
not recover, and whatever slur might be cast upon it, it was
a time immemorial statute, not yet repealed.
Defendant said that when he called upon plaintiff, that
person insisted upon " standing" a bottle of champagne
before anything was done. That was drunk, and then plain-
tiff refused to settle unless witness stood a bottle. Then
witness stood one, and finally a third was brought, but wit-
ness refused to partake of it. Witness threw down 168. as
payment of the bottle ho awed, and plaintiff took it up and
kept it. Plaintiff refused to settle the account until the
wine was stood. Witness never had more than ls. 6d.
worth of brandy and water, and then plaintiff would not
accept the money for it. Witness gave evidence against
plaintiff in a Chancery suit.

Cross-examined—ln reference to the Chancery suit, my
principals gave bills to the extent of £7OO for the Angel,
and that was the agreement. I do not know that a great
sum was loet in cashing the bills. Ido not know if plain-
tiff went to Australia as an actor. He went to the gold
fields.

Mr. Gtiffiths—Yes, and you have some of his gold.
Mr. Miller, one of defendant's employers, was called and
examined as to the spirits consumed upon the occasion of

his visit.

Cross-examined—The gin was not as I sent it, It was
adulterated, and was not nice. Ido not know about sugar,
but there was a great deal of water in it. (Laughter.) I
advised him about the adulteration. The house was a dis-
reputably conducted one. I was in it for three hours. I
am not ashamed of myself, as I went to buy the house. the
tills I gave aro due in July and December, and will then
be paid.
Plaintiff's daughter said she was bard:laid to her father,
and she proved taking the half sovereign paid by de-
fendant.

Crose•esamined—l have had a difference with my
father. Ho knocked me about.

Re-examined—I left through his ill -usage, but I have
sworn the truth to-day.

- Mr. Philbrick then argued that he had made out his case,
mhe re under subpoena, and
up, remarked that
the plaintiff
and Mr. Griffiths said this was a most painful case, but
plaintiff had certainly made his out.
The
daughter Secondary,ha d in
ce summinge
though it might be called hard, she was bound to speak the
truth, and it was improper to oast a doubt upon her evi-
learned
a
evi-
dence. The learned Secondary said that the plaintiff could
not recover the spirits, but the cigars did not come under
the provisions of the act.
The jury found for the defendant.
The costs in this case will be above £2O.

QUEENSTOWN7MarCh 6.—Arrived--o—tadini, from New
York. • _

FALMOUTH, March 6.—Wind S.W.—Arrived F. C.
iiwach, from Foo-chow-foo,